From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-05-03 12:20:33
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2551215 By: earnie _MAX_DRIVE a:, b:, c:, etc is only three bytes with 1 byte to hold the null character. PATH_MAX is what you want and even that can be short for some instances. I forget the exact syntax but it begins with \?\ ... can be very large. Earnie ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=7134 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-05-03 13:30:08
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2551445 By: fmarchal Thanks Earnie, but your answer shows me I must explain a little bit why I ask that question. I use _splitpath to split paths, but I've got a path starting with a server name and _splitpath failed because it only accepts a single drive letter. I wanted to write a replacement but it failed because _MAX_DRIVE is set to 3. Then the question occured to me: since the drive part of a path may be a network drive, why limit _MAX_DRIVE to only 3 bytes (or, as you pointed out, 2 characters) instead of using #define _MAX_DRIVE 256 Is it a define inherited for compatibility reason from the old dos system where #define _MAX_PATH 80 #define _MAX_DRIVE 3 #define _MAX_DIR 66 #define _MAX_FNAME 9 #define _MAX_EXT 5 or is it an error because nobody never thought about changing it ? Frederic ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=7134 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2004-05-03 14:10:25
|
Read and respond to this message at: https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2551550 By: earnie Because the vendor (Microsoft) has explained it's use and that explaination doesn't match what you intend. It is the vendor that we must listen to. If you can provide documentation (not code in the vendor header) that supports what you want we will consider changing it. Otherwise your use of the macro must match the vendors intention. ______________________________________________________________________ You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum. To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit: https://sourceforge.net/forum/unmonitor.php?forum_id=7134 |