Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: XtMalloc always fails fatally - why?
Message-ID: <9008311413.AA11915@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 90 14:13:37 GMT
References: <1990Aug31.105145.22656@axion.bt.co.uk>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 13


    What is the
    reason for doing it this way, rather than letting the calling procedure
    decide what action to take?

Xt was designed without seriously thinking about the problem of running out
of memory.  It permitted the toolkit to be designed and implemented in a
shorter timeframe, while maximizing the number of problems downstream. :-)
(Do I need a vacation, or what? :-)

    More importantly is there any way round this?

Good luck...