🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.165044.4781@ready.eng.ready.com> glenn@ready.com (Glenn Kasten) writes:
><limits.h> is supposed to define MB_LEN_MAX.  Is it permissible for a
>conforming implementation to define MB_LEN_MAX in terms of another
>type, where that other type is not declared in <limits.h>?  In other
>words, do header files have to be complete in themselves, or can they
>require other header files to also be included, in order to be usable?

Any program that has #include <limits.h> must get a definition of MB_LEN_MAX.
If the implementation makes <limits.h> a file, and if that file causes
inclusion of another file, and the result defines MB_LEN_MAX (and everything
else that it has to define), and the result does not intrude on the
application's namespace (e.g. not forcing a definition of stdin on a
program that didn't #include <stdio.h>, and not forcing other stuff on a
program), then there is no problem.

If it is possible to construct a valid program that has #include <limits.h>
and uses MB_LEN_MAX but doesn't get correct behavior out of the
implementation, then the implementation is not conforming.  If the
implementation does something like nesting #include <stdio.h> and defines
stuff that <limits.h> isn't supposed to, then it is not conforming.

As for what I mean by a "valid program," that essentially means that the
program conforms to every possible conforming implementation.  It might not
be strictly conforming because it might print out the value of MB_LEN_MAX,
but it is still entitled to obtain correct behavior.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"Yeah -- bad wiring.  That was probably it.  Very bad."