On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:48:19AM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> > > 2. It also breaks common style ctype using for is{w}ascii(). If revert
> > > this, is{w}ascii() should be rewritted too.
> >
> > That seems reasonable.
>
> Well, I don't want to fight here. If there general consensus that we
> should prefer human-readable code for __isctype(), isascii() and
> iswascii() in trade for some edge cases, let it be so.
From second thoght, is{w}ascii() are macros and rewritting them cause
things like (arg++) be evaluated twice, so it is better to not touch it.
So I don't see the point why __isctype() so special to not looks like
isascii()
--
http://ache.pp.ru/
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
