Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!seismo.gps.caltech.edu!bruce
From: bruce@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Bruce Worden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: _tolower and _toupper macros
Message-ID: <1990Jul28.193255.16540@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 90 19:32:55 GMT
References: <2891@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1990Jul26.100721.14628@warwick.ac.uk> <246@audfax.audiofax.com>
Sender: bruce@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Bruce Worden)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, CA
Lines: 20

In article <246@audfax.audiofax.com> arnold@audiofax.com (Arnold Robbins) writes:
>In article <1990Jul26.100721.14628@warwick.ac.uk> cuuee@warwick.ac.uk (Sean Legassick) writes:
>>	Does anyone know what ANSI has to say about these conversion
>>routines? It would seem that using them on any other character except
>>for capitals with _tolower and lowercase with _toupper is pretty
>>non-portable code writing. Comments?

Nice explanation of the history of these functions deleted...

>I guess tolower() and toupper() remain real functions in V.3.2 in case
>anyone takes their address; I can't see any other reason to not have them
>be macros identical to their _to* counterparts.

I don't believe that this is the reason for implementing to*() as functions.
The most important reason is so that these functions can work on 
non-US-ascii character sets (i.e. they will continue to function correctly 
after a call to setlocale() which changes the LC_CTYPE locale.)  
Another important reason is to avoid multiple evaluations of the argument 
as has been discussed elsewhere.
						Bruce