On 3/12/2010 4:48 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Why do we even have this block?
Why, indeed? > CreateHardLinkA is only implemented in Windows 2000 and later, which implies > unicode support. > (Why support an ansi version of an API that is only implemented on unicode > capable systems?) Because they can, and because there are local code page users who have done things such as this, and breaking this functionality (especially resulting in non-compilation) for the legacy branch is impolite. I'm personally fine with declaring APR 2 unicode (utf-8) only as of apr 2.0, but would like to see others' thoughts on this. I don't think failing to load on NT SP6/Win 9x is rude any longer, though. Simply attaching such machines to the public internet is something that should be actively discouraged, if not scorned and shamed.
