Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> How about this? The patch was discussed and revised a few times some >> months ago. Nobody complained after the last patch was posted. I'll >> install this on Sunday, unless someone complains. > > It seems a bit odd for you to list Bruno as the maintainer, if broke > out the module. Perhaps you should change the maintainer to being > Bruno and yourself? Or Bruno and "all"?
Last time you asked me to change the maintainer from myself to Bruno. :-) Admittedly, that was before size_max.h was written... What is the criteria for being listed as maintainer of a gnulib module? Wrote the code? Interested in supporting the code? Modularized the code? Wrote the module file? Gnulib developer? In this case, I think naming me and Bruno as maintainer would be the right thing. Ok? +Maintainer: +Simon Josefsson +Bruno Haible Another complication: Should we start replacing /* Get SIZE_MAX. */ #include <limits.h> #if HAVE_STDINT_H # include <stdint.h> #endif and/or #ifndef SIZE_MAX # define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1) #endif with /* Get SIZE_MAX. */ #include "size_max.h" now? Is SIZE_MAX guaranteed to be ((size_t)-1)? Several modules would be affected by the previous. Should size_max.h, as a safety precaution, read: # include <limits.h> # if HAVE_STDINT_H # include <stdint.h> # endif # ifndef SIZE_MAX # define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1) # endif I think the answer to the last question is no, since that would only ever be useful on pre-C89 platforms. But the first is trickier. _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
