> > A machine can be ANSI compliant and have INT_MAX == 32767 and
> > have as many bits as it wants. All ANSI does is set a lower
> > limit to INT_MAX. ANSI doesn't define the number of bits per any
> > type, except setting that char must be at least 8 bits. At that
> > point, ANSI does not bring "number of bits" into any discussions
> > at all (IIRC).
>
> INT_MAX must be the maximum value for type int. You can't have
> INT_MAX be 32767 if the values for int range from -2billion to
> +2billion.
>
> An int must be at least a 16-bit integer. That is why INT_MAX must be
> at least 32767.
>
> (I'll stop now... this is way past silly. I'm sorry for wasting your
> time.)
Guys, can we take a step back from this discussion for just a second or
two.
I asked for one of two things, either change the code to reflect the docs,
or change the docs to reflect the code. Then I stated a preference for
one over the other.
Change the docs if that is how you want to solve the problem, but don't
doc one thing and code another. I don't care if MAX_INT is really close
to infinite, that isn't important to me. I care that our docs acuratelly
reflect what the code does. The docs are the first place new programmers
look, and the more accurate we are, the easier for new people to come on
board.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
