From:	Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: missing C++ header <limits>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:28:45 -0500
References:	<368926D6 DOT ED264561 AT utoronto DOT ca> <36896116 DOT 3C39C3A1 AT earthlink DOT net> <3689D541 DOT DF9346B9 AT utoronto DOT ca>
X-Posted-Path-Was:	not-for-mail
X-Accept-Language:	en
X-ELN-Date:	30 Dec 1998 10:29:07 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date:	Wed Dec 30 02:35:03 1998
Organization:	Nocturnal Aviation
Lines:	22
Mime-Version:	1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host:	1cust126.tnt11.nyc3.da.uu.net
Message-ID:	<368A005D.20B8B5E1@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Michael Lehotay wrote:

> The problem is that the <limits> header file, which supposedly defines
> numeric_limits, seems to be missing. <climits> just #includes <limits.h>,
> which only #defines limit macros. I could use these macros to do the same
> thing, but my point is that I want to learn how to program in C++ instead
> of just writing C code with the same functionality.
> 
> Am I correct in my assumption that I'll just have to live without
> numeric_limits? If so, should I expect to run into more surprises like
> this?

It looks like you do.  I can't find the contents of <limits> lurking
anywhere.  My failure to correctly recognize your question reflects my
non-use of this functionality.  I can see the necessity for writing
portable code, though.  I hope this is fixed, or that someone will tell
us we are both wrong.


-- 
Martin Ambuhl (mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net)
Note: mambuhl AT tiac DOT net will soon be inactive

- Raw text -