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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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