Re: source(builtin) and read(2)

[Geoff Clare]

James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote, on 31 Mar 2007:
>
> It seems to me that there is a certain amount of
> (confusion|disagreement) among members of the austin-group-l mailing
> list, who are, almost by definition, connoisseurs of standards wording
> and distinguishers of fine points.
> 
> If the members of that list cannot mostly agree on what exactly the
> standard means here, then (once we've figured that out) we should
> reword it so that it is clearer to everybody.

Yes, we should tidy up the wording to eliminate any possible
confusion.  We should be using the wording from the C Standard for
these numerical limits, since most of them are from the C Standard.

Ironically, it is the wording for SSIZE_MAX that is closest to
being right and the others that all need to change, as the wording
in the C Standard is "maximum value for an object of type xxxx".

I'll submit a defect report.

-- 
Geoff Clare <address@hidden>
The Open Group, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, England