2011/3/23 NightStrike :
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Torri
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
>
> I don't know who to g
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
I don't know who to go to to make this change request to the
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know who to go to to make this change request to the c library
>>> standard (ANSI C Library?).
>>> it would not break any ex
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
I don't know who to go to to make this change request to the c library
standard (ANSI C Library?).
it would not break any existing code, but it would make the function EVER
more useful!
Microsoft mai
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jim Michaels wrote:
> I don't know who to go to to make this change request to the c library
> standard (ANSI C Library?).
> it would not break any existing code, but it would make the function EVER
> more useful!
Microsoft maintains the library. We just consume
I don't know who to go to to make this change request to the c library standard
(ANSI C Library?).
it would not break any existing code, but it would make the function EVER more
useful!
in ctype.h, these macros should be redefined.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/45119yx3%28VS.80%29.a
