"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are referring to the fact that I would prefer to use a manifest > constant versus sysconf or looping until a fit is found? Clearly I > don't think that is an inferior solution, but rather a practical one.
My point is that you are willing to deliberately introduce a bug! Surely the C programming language has many fundamental flaws, and one of them is that there is no convenient way to do this right. But it sounds like your preference is to use a manifest constant rather than actually do the right thing! (Where "right thing" means "work properly under all the circumstances where it's possible to work properly".) > > You really think this is a serious cost in > > a program that is doing lots of encryption?? > > No, I don't -- I just think it is a bug. One which is easy to fix for > the single-threaded case. It's a bug to correctly support long hostnames? > As I said in an earlier message, I appreciate that. I also happen to > believe that it has been misapplied here. I remember when passwords were limited to eight characters. "What possible value is there in a longer password?" we were asked. We have since learned that there is such value. I don't know what possible value there is in huge hostnames. But I have enough humility to know that in nearly every case where there has been a fixed limit on the length of a thing, it has turned out to be a serious problem, and needed to be fixed. I expect this case will be the same. Since it's easy to simply handle the case correctly, why not do so? Why deliberately cripple the software? Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd