by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2006/10/18 01:50 -04:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2006/10/17/837884.aspx
Amazing the arguments people can have in the comments of blog posts, isn't it?
I was reminded of this earlier today in looking at the comments from Raymond's post What does the letter "T" in LPTSTR stand for?
The thing I love to keep in mind is that, since everyone ought to be using Unicode, the whole T meaning is very simple. It means W.
Oh, that reminds me of a post from here that spurred a huge conversation that W does not look like a double U, it looks like a double V.
So I guess T means W which actually means VV. Which still kind of looks like a much bigger W. Like a fullwidth oir wide Ｗ (U+ff37).
And of course V and VV don't really mean anything.
Now Dave thought it should have been W/N instead of W/A, But of course SQL and especially SQL Server's use of the N prefix would make thst even more confusing/
As an alternative, he thought that U/A might make sense, and U guess I could understand the desire to avoid mixing metaphors here (narrow/wide or Unicode/ANSI) make a lot more sense than any of these mixup plans.
And of course there is using the L prefix in C/C++ for Unicode or the N prefix in SQL Server.
I could get into the C# use of the @ prefix and more. But it is time to concede the argument. This is not simple, at all.... :-)
This post brought to you by Ｔ (U+ff34, a.k.a. FULLWIDTH LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T)
BryanK on 18 Oct 2006 8:18 AM:
Ah, but "U" might possibly conflict with the "unsigned" suffix in C for constant numbers (i.e. 0x80000000UL).
:-P
Michael S. Kaplan on 18 Oct 2006 12:36 PM:
Even the simplest of parsers can tell a prefix from a suffix. :-)