Is there a reason for any C or C++ compiler to not define wctrans_t and wctype_t as the type wchar_t? -

actually, i'm working on comparison of data types between programming languages, , here problem when reading c , c++ standards.

quoted c11,

wctrans_t a scalar type can hold values represent locale-specific character mappings

wctype_t a scalar type can hold values represent locale-specific character classifications

the phrase a scalar type indicates c11 not restrict wctrans_t , wctype_t specific scalar type.

my gcc 4.8 of mingw implements wctrans_t , wctype_t typedef wchar_t, , can't think there reason other c compilers not define them is.

could proof otherwise, or give possibility happen?

i surprised defined them wchar_t, neither wctype_t nor wctrans_t have characters.

both platforms use define them else:

aix~$ grep wctype_t /usr/include/*h | grep typedef  /usr/include/ctype.h:   typedef unsigned int    wctype_t;  aix~$ grep wctrans_t /usr/include/*h | grep typedef  /usr/include/wctype.h:typedef wint_t (*wctrans_t)();   solaris~$ grep wctype_t /usr/include/*h | grep typedef  /usr/include/wchar.h:typedef    int     wctype_t;  solaris~$ grep wctrans_t /usr/include/*/*h | grep typedef /usr/include/iso/wctype_iso.h:typedef unsigned int      wctrans_t;