"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then > indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or > _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX or what we `know' _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX to be. > I think it's a pity.
You seriously think this is better? You don't care at all about providing the best system for users you can? Why would you deliberately choose an inferior solution? > Actually, it has a few problems: > > = `xgethostname' is a poor name. Change the name then. > = On that same set of systems, where stupidly long host names are > used, calling xgethostname is expensive because the function does > not keep track of how much memory it needed last time. Oh please! Call it once. You really think this is a serious cost in a program that is doing lots of encryption?? > I could hardly blame the person who designed gethostname(). The > interface has worked quite well in the real world, and indeed POSIX > has taken the oppurtuntity to standardize that interface. The only > problem is that this was made a "possibly indeterminate" value, which > IMHO was a mistake, albeit one that it appears we'll have to live > with. It's not a mistake, it's a design principle: make nothing limited that doesn't need to be. That is also a GNU design principle. > Regardless of these academic arguments, I guess we'll have to > implement something like xgethostname just for GNU/Hurd, since there > doesn't seem to be any support here for following the rest of the UNIX > world. We are trying to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past rather than slavishly repeating them. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd