[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.
--steffen
|
|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)
[bug #55449] Use FILENAME_MAX in maxfilename.cpp, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/01/12