>[ some experimenting later ... ]  What it appears to be doing is filling
>the buffer to the specified length and then returning -1 anyway.  Given
>your argument that there is no reason for it to fail, I suppose the
>quickest hack is to assume that -1 means the same as "buffer filled".

Be careful, my point wasn't that it wasn't supposed to fail, my point
was that returning -1 means "error".  I don't see how we can portably
assume -1 means "buffer filled".

I think I'm with Paul Vixie on this one; it's not unreasonable in this
day and age to require a POSIX C library.

--Ken

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nong...
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers