> > Please do not do this. -2 has the virtue that it's
> > unambiguous (i.e., doesn't depend on being stored as
> > a signed value of a particular size), and is a clear
> > sentinel value outside the normal range of valid UIDs.
> > 60001 is smack-dab in the middle of the UID space on
> > systems that support large UIDs, and will force nearly
> > every program that deals with UIDs to make explicit
> > checks for that value even if they don't know or care
> > about user nobody.
>
> Are you saying that something in DCE will break or are you saying that
> this is just not a good idea? I care alot about the first case and
> somewhat less about the second.
I was making an assumption that nobody is always -2, but
that some vendors coded the -2 value as a large number that,
when stuffed into the correct size signed value, is equivalent
to -2. My point was the if the value is coded as -2 rather
than the large number, it's portable (as -2) across platforms
with different sized UIDs. The problems is obviously more
complicated than that.
Will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Hopkins Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chelmsford System Software Lab (CSSL) Phone: (508) 436-4966
The Hewlett-Packard Company Fax: (508) 436-5140
