Prev: question about mfc42.dll
Next: cannot execute C preprocessor cl.exe
From: Tom Serface on 26 Feb 2010 01:51
As you know, I'm a huge advocate of just going to full time Unicode (like
C#) and getting rid of the dumb macros unless someone absolutely has to do
ANSI. I hate having to put _T() around strings whenever I switch back to
C++. I've started using the L"String" form instead since I refuse to use
ANSI any more, but that is still a drag since I keep forgetting to do it.

You're right that _T is better than _TEXT, but ...

Tom

"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message
news:kdmbo5hftbib7vcubo039mi13idhdf8k7n(a)4ax.com...
> See below...
> ****
> TEXT, _TEXT and _T are all the same. _T takes fewer characters to type
> and is less
> intrusive in the code. So I use it.
> ****


From: David Ching on 4 Mar 2010 14:11
"Mihai N." <nmihai_year_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2A14588B614MihaiN(a)207.46.248.16...
> UNICODE affectw Win32 API and TEXT
> _UNICODE the C runtime (CRT), _TEXT and _T
>
> Since you will always want to define UNICODE and _UNICODE
> (asking for trouble otherwise), it does not really matter if
> you use TEXT, _TEXT or _T.
>
> I tend to prefer _T (shorer to type).
>

I also go with _T (or "L") because it is shorter and does not interfere with
full searches like TEXT or _TEXT tend to do. but not because it is easier
to type. It is actually hard to type, Shift + <pinkie>, <Other Shift>+T.


> But GUI applications often include just "windows.h" and few Win SDK
> headers, so _T (and _TEXT) are not defined (you need "tchar.h" for that).

Good point.


> So if I am not the owner of the code, and don't want to add new header
> files to reduce unexpected side-effects, I go with TEXT.
> Although if the application uses a lot of CRT strings operations
> (like strcat, sprintf, & Co.) then tchar.h becomes mandatory.
>

-- David

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: question about mfc42.dll
Next: cannot execute C preprocessor cl.exe