How best to alter case

by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2005/10/18 03:01 -04:00, original URI:

Yesterday when I talked about Comparing Unicode file names the right way, Mike Dunn asked the following question:

When using LCMapString to do the uppercasing, what's the right LCID to use? LOCALE_INVARIANT?

The CharUpperBuff docs say it "uses the language driver for the current language selected by the user at setup or by using Control Panel" which sounds to me like a language-sensitive operation that would have the same problems as using LCMAP_LINGUISTIC_CASING.

Yep, if you look at the various functions they all have text like that.

But I will tell you a secret -- that bit of text is utter nonsense, slated for removal in the updated versions of CharUpper, CharLower, CharUpperBuff, and CharLowerBuff (if you doubt me, you can look up early versions of the new text at CharUpper, CharLower, CharUpperBuff, and CharLowerBuff).   :-)

I sort of explained it when I asked what linguistic casing means, but only in a very roundabout way. The thing is that unless you pass that LCMAP_LINGUISTIC_CASING flag, there is absolutely no locale-specific behavior whatsoever, irregardless of what LCID you pass.

(Well technically, we still do validate that the LCID is one we recognize, but we do not do anything with the locale; this would suggest that for performance reasons you should try to pass the LCID representing the default user locale so that you do not have load a new locale or anything.)

So, the answer to the question is that it does not matter what LCID you pass -- at all. But only if you do not pass LCMAP_LINGUISTIC_CASING.

Note: all of the above applies to unmanaged code only.

For managed code, the managed equivalent of LCMAP_LINGUISTIC_CASING in passed internally for every single culture except for the invariant one. So there you probably do want to use the InvariantCulture to do your casing when you are dealing with managed code.


This post brought to you by "ſ" (U+017f, LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S)

# David on 18 Oct 2005 8:40 AM:

Argh! Please...Just Say No to "irregardless"! Other than that, thanks for the info ;).

# Michael S. Kaplan on 18 Oct 2005 10:50 AM:

Hi David,

Well, technically it *is* a word, though some people truly don't like it. :-)

# Michael Dunn_ on 18 Oct 2005 12:28 PM:

Cool, thanks for the quick answer.

David, I'll take "irregardless" over "performant" any day.

# David on 18 Oct 2005 11:15 PM:

> David, I'll take "irregardless" over "performant" any day.

At least "performant" has a reason for replaces "performs well" or "has high performance" with a single word. "Irregardless" takes a word that means exactly the same thing, and tacks two letters on the front :P.

# Maurits [MSFT] on 19 Oct 2005 11:23 AM:

(insert tongue into cheek)

regard-less: "without regard"
irregardless: "not without regard" ???

How about "irregardful"?

# Michael S. Kaplan on 19 Oct 2005 11:32 AM:

Hmmmm. According to

regardless: In spite of everything; anyway

irregardless: regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously

I am a humorous kind of guy, irregardless of what some of you may think.... :-)

# Maurits [MSFT] on 19 Oct 2005 1:50 PM:

You conveniently left out the other definition :)

I'm not a fan of the American Heritage dictionary -- it's very snooty -- and this link is a perfect example.

# Michael S. Kaplan on 19 Oct 2005 1:58 PM:

Of course in explaining why *I* choose to use a word, I use the definitions that *I* believe to be correct....

Please consider a donation to keep this archive running, maintained and free of advertising.
Donate €20 or more to receive an offline copy of the whole archive including all images.

referenced by

2008/06/25 Seeing the tears, my heart went out to her as I asked her "Why the Long S?"

go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day