Thomas Martitz wrote: > It looks weird, indeed. But it shouldn't have been called > nat_toupper in the first place imo but something more generic > instead.
Then change it. There is no point in keeping confusing code for historical reasons. -- Björn
Thomas Martitz wrote: > It looks weird, indeed. But it shouldn't have been called > nat_toupper in the first place imo but something more generic > instead.
Then change it. There is no point in keeping confusing code for historical reasons. -- Björn