home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c
- Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!Celestial.COM!bill
- From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
- Subject: Re: Maximum depth of #if preprocessing directives
- Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:11:24 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec30.181124.6871@Celestial.COM>
- References: <JET.92Dec24133237@boxer.nas.nasa.gov> <BzsK12.5Ky@jrd.dec.com> <1992Dec29.001933.25655@lucid.com>
- Lines: 21
-
- In <1992Dec29.001933.25655@lucid.com> jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:
-
- .......
- :Just to put my cards on the table. X3J16/SC22 (C++ standards
- :committee) is sharply divided on whether to have a section on
- :limits. Some of us, including myself, argue that without such
- :a section any limit is a bug. With such a section arbitrary limits
- :are somehow condoned as suggested by Norman's comment, and we
- :don't want to condone any limits.
-
- I'm in complete agreement with limits as bugs. IMHO the hardware/OS
- should be the only limiting factor. The Microsoft C compiler
- that came with Tandy 16/6000 Xenix frequently bombed out because its
- symbol table was a fixed size!
-
- Bill
- --
- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
- UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way
- uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
- SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
-