On 1/1/23 14:48, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hello Florian, Ingo,
>
> On 1/1/23 08:24, Florian Obser wrote:
>> On 2022-12-31 23:54 +01, Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> With your change, the timeout could go up to 600.999999, i.e. almost 601
>>> seconds. I don't know the protocol and can't say whether the change
>>> would matter, but naively, exceeding the MAX_ feels surprising to me.
Oops, I missed this part. That's where it makes sense. :)
>>>
>>> Really, this doesn't look like a bug to me...
>>
>> Unfortunately the OP did not explain why they think this is a bug.
>
> Sorry; my bad; I should have explained it.
>
> The thing that led me to believe that it was a bug is that variables or
> constants called *max* (normally) refer to the maximum value allowed in a range,
> for which there usually is a *min* counterpart (when it's not simply 0).
>
> In this case, it seems MAX_* is really the maximum+1. I don't know what the
> code is about, so 200 and 600 just look like magic numbers to me, and I don't
> know if the maximum is 600 or actually 599.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Ingo
>>
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
No comments:
Post a Comment