3 ms·
Agreed! And TCHAR was the dumbest of all of them. “Not all of our libs/tools/editors support Unicode yet so use TCHAR in the meantime and then one day when our
by CountSessine 5y ago
Agreed! And TCHAR was the dumbest of all of them. “Not all of our libs/tools/editors support Unicode yet so use TCHAR in the meantime and then one day when our stack supports it fully then you can throw the switch and all your char*’s will be wchar_t*’s and I’m sure that’ll go really well in your codebase.”
- cesarb 5y ago> And TCHAR was the dumbest of all of them. “Not all of our libs/tools/editors support Unicode yet so use TCHAR The reason for TCHAR is not "libs/tools/editors" not supporting Unicode, but the operating system itself. With TCHAR and related types, the same source code could target both Windows 95 and Windows NT, you just have to change a single #define (ok, IIRC there are actually three #defines: UNICODE, _UNICODE, and another one I can't recall at the moment) and recompile.