On 4/26/05, Jeff Latimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for that. I suppose that wrappering memcpy as as strncpy is not
> a good idea. To save confusion, would a comment in unicode.h to say
> "don't worry strncpyW is missing by design and that memcpy/lstrcpynA/W
> should be used instead" be
Thanks for that. I suppose that wrappering memcpy as as strncpy is not
a good idea. To save confusion, would a comment in unicode.h to say
"don't worry strncpyW is missing by design and that memcpy/lstrcpynA/W
should be used instead" be a good precaution?
Jeff Latimer
James Hawkins wrote:
On
On 4/25/05, Jeff Latimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have just been reading the lists and realise that strncpyW/strncpy is
> bad news for some reason. Please consider this patch withdrawn.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to implement strncpyW as a wrapper for memcpy?
> Given that all the other strin
I have just been reading the lists and realise that strncpyW/strncpy is
bad news for some reason. Please consider this patch withdrawn.
Wouldn't it be better to implement strncpyW as a wrapper for memcpy?
Given that all the other string functions are implemeted with the (W)
version, having s
