Nathan Ingersoll wrote: > If the hardcoded 4096 is used for a path buffer, then it should > definitely get changed to PATH_MAX. Agreed. Maybe head off some future platform problems...
Other arbitrary buffers should get > a define that is appropriate for their buffers. Most that I have seen, while looking at all this, has been used in a path situation. There was an occasional one or so that stood out... 4096 is a fine number, > but a define would make it easier to change and allow us to document > why the buffer is that size. Even something like: > > /* Need an arbitrary buffer size big enough to hold strings we're building */ > #define BIG_BUFFER_SIZE 4096 > > But in most cases something describing the reasoning behind the > specific size would be better. > Most certainly. dh > On 3/1/07, Christopher Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> While reading through E (wm) code, I noticed that in some places >> PATH_MAX is used and in others 4096 is used (ie: char buf[4096])... >> I undestand what path_max is/does and how it relates to different >> systems...my question is Do we have a preference as to which ?? >> >> I don't mind doing the leg work on this to correct everything and get it >> consistent. >> >> Cheers, >> dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
