Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!aurora!labrea!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!jkh
From: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X V10 XOpenDisplay - should it assume hostname:0??
Message-ID: <5251@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 14:40:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.5251
Posted: Mon Sep 28 14:40:07 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 06:35:30 EDT
References: <8709280101.AA26155@watdragon.uucp>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 13

In article <8709280101.AA26155@watdragon.uucp> jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.EDU ("John M. Sellens") writes:
>Currently, it seems that the X V10.4 XOpenDisplay requires
>either an argument or an environment variable, and if both of
>of them are missing, or if a display number is not given,
>then XOpenDisplay will fail.  My question is: isn't it
>reasonable for it to assume the current host and display 0
>if either or both are missing?

That would be cool, if the C language would guarantee you NULLs for
unspecified arguments. I don't believe that this is assured under all
architectures. Variable arguments invariably lose, unless you use VARARGS.

						Jordan