On 08/16/06 13:45, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 11:31 AM -0500 8/16/06, Eric Anderson wrote:
My point was, that either path you take (if BSD_VISIBLE is
defined or not), you end up with d_name having a size of
255 + 1, so what's the point the having it at all?
To make it clear that d_name is tied to the exact value
of MAXNAMLEN (just in case that value ever changes), and
it does not just happen to be 255+1 bytes for some reason
that is completely unrelated to MAXNAMLEN.
So if some programmer is working with the d_name variable,
and *if* they actually look at this include file, then
they'll immediately realize that any checks that they make
should use MAXNAMLEN, and not hard-code in the 255 value.
That's my 2-cents worth, at least...
Then shouldn't both be set to MAXNAMLEN?
Of course, it isn't a big deal, I'm just curious what I'm missing in the
reasoning for doing such a thing.
Eric
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
