Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!std-unix From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: Re: OPEN_MAX and other constants - are they desireable? Message-ID: <3505@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 23:17:05 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3505 Posted: Wed Nov 13 23:17:05 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 04:29:50 EST References: <3430@ut-sally.UUCP> Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee Lines: 29 Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 17:02:39 est From: Kee Hinckley In article <3430@ut-sally.UUCP> you write: > Date: 06 Oct 85 18:36:07 +1000 (Sun) > >From: Robert Elz ... > I suggest deleting all of the constants, and instead specifying > a library routine, which when handed a name defined in > will return the associated constant. > One problem with this is that a piece of code may want to #if off of particular constants. For instance, if I discover that the amount of memory I have is too small, and I don't have virtual memory then I might want to use temporary files. This could be all handled automatically by using #if's in the code if I could reference a constant, but it would not work out nearly as well if I had to make that kind of decision at runtime. I tend to agree with the other responses. The problems that are introduced by limits.h almost all relate to binary portability, and binary portability is not a concern for the standard. Kee Hinckley User Environment Apollo Computer ...decvax!wanginst!apollo!nazgul Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 17