Thanks, Chris. I mistakenly thought that all Windows platforms supported the 'A' versions of those functions. That's the kind of feedback I was looking for. Perhaps my suggestion still makes sense for desktop versions. I don't know. As I mentioned in my reply to Arthur, when the 'A' functions *are* supported, using the WideToMulti and MultiToWide functions would seem to hurt performance a bit by causing extra conversion steps. Of course Windows is certainly doing those conversions underneath the hood in order to support the 'A' versions of those functions on NT/2000/XP. What am I left with? Slightly better performance when using Microsoft Layer for Unicode on Windows 95/98/Me? A few less lines of code? Hmm...my suggestion is becoming less compelling by the moment. :-)
Rob -----Original Message----- From: Clark, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [sqlite] Win32 coders: change os.c? Importance: Low That's how we deal with this with the WinCE port of sqlite where we only have the Wide versions of the functions available, however to remain consistent with the single/multi byte filenames, etc. we use the Wide<->MultiByte. I concur with Arthur, I'd prefer the existing function names to be used. Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
