Good morning,
From:Erik Auerswald, Date:Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:00:32 +0200
Hi,
[...]
Numbers between 32 bit SIZE_MAX and 64 bit SIZE_MAX will show
differing behavior between 32 and 64 bit platforms (and data models).
In practice this should be irrelevant, but it might result in very
obscure
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 08:58:01PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also base64 -w0 has similar meaning.
I didn't know that, but I don't like that either. Utilities should
use an explicit representation for infinity, if that's what they
need. 'Inf', say.
In the
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 04:35:06AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
Erik Auerswald wrote:
an explicit Inf keyword is still better than some number that
relies on system limits
With the latest patch, there are no system limits; you can use as
big a number as you like. I'm aware of the use 0
Erik Auerswald wrote:
an explicit Inf keyword is still better than some number that
relies on system limits
With the latest patch, there are no system limits; you can use as big a number
as you like. I'm aware of the use 0 to denote infinity tradition, but I'm
still leery of using a valid
On 08/23/2015 01:35 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Erik Auerswald wrote:
an explicit Inf keyword is still better than some number that
relies on system limits
With the latest patch, there are no system limits; you can use as big a
number
as you like. I'm aware of the use 0 to denote infinity
2015-08-23 13:26:35 +0200, Erik Auerswald:
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 08:58:01PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also base64 -w0 has similar meaning.
I didn't know that, but I don't like that either. Utilities should
use an explicit representation for infinity, if
