Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think the common-sense interpretation when one speaks of the
>``maximum length'' of some string is that it is the maximum value
>strlen() might return, and doesn't include metainformation.
However it slightly uglifies idiomatic coding of things like
< said:
> This change seems to make it even more likely that people will forget
> whether MUMBLE_MAX includes the NUL or not.
I chose to conform to the definition of {NAME_MAX} because it was the
one I was staring at when I wrote the aardvark. I could just as
easily have used {LOGIN_NAME_MAX}
Just some ramblings
I find this a bit odd. I concluded recently that NAME_MAX was the
odd-one-out WRT not having the NUL only because it is the maximum
size of a *component* of a path. When the value is used, it makes
sense to talk in terms of the without-NUL value.
This change seems to
My bug report against the current POSIX draft was accepted. For the
record, here are the changes being made. (``The indicated line'' is
referring to a line in the definition of gethostname() where the
length of the buffer was previously defined to be 256, including the
terminating null. The exc
