[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #55449] Use FILENAME_MAX in maxfilename.cpp

From: Steffen Nurpmeso
Subject: Re: [bug #55449] Use FILENAME_MAX in maxfilename.cpp
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 15:21:54 +0100
User-agent: s-nail v14.9.11-134-gcc46cfe8

Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <address@hidden>:
 |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <address@hidden>:
 ||Eli Zaretskii wrote in <address@hidden>:
 |||> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:42:31 +0100
 |||> From: Steffen Nurpmeso <address@hidden>
 |||> Cc: address@hidden
 |||>|I think FILENAME_MAX is Standard ANSI C symbol, so it can/should be
 |||> NAME_MAX was also ANSI C by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie.
 |||> ANSI C says
 |||>   NAME_MAX 14 /* longest filename-component; system-dependent */
 |||No, NAME_MAX is Posix, not ANSI.
 ||I was citing the ANSI C book of the mentioned, like i have said.
 |Note that i realize that those great ones bugged it up in that
 |NAME_MAX was the name but a single stale reference to FILENAME_MAX
 |was left there / sneaked in too.  That was long after the legendary
 |Ritchie C standard frustration mail <address@hidden> (noalias comments to
 |X3J11; "In discussion with various X3J11 members, I learned that
 |this section is now regarded as an inadvertant error, and no one
 |thinks that it will last in its current form.  Nevertheless, it
 |seemed wisest to keep my comments in their original strong form.
 |The intentions of the committee are irrelevant; only their
 |document matters.")

That is to say.  Turning this oversight to patch thirty years
later is a thing that i do not understand.

|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]