Re: Help: IFC stack overflow

Joost <jv244@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, I've personally experienced that you need an explicit limit on some
systems. I don't know exactly why.

I don't recall having seen that, though maybe I've just forgotten. I'll
believe that you have seen it. I posit that those cases, whatever they
are, where you must have an explicit limit are outnumbered by the cases
where specifying an explicit limit will cause problems because it ends
up being to small at some point (probably long after the user has
forgotten about having specified it).

Thus, I think I'll "vote" for Rich Townnsend's position of unlimitted as
being "better", though I'd agree with qualifying it with "in most
situations".

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attributed atl and ToolboxBitmap32
    ... I'm in a bit of a rush, but look into specifying an rgs script explicitly. ... I seem to recall there's an attribute for providing an .rgs file that will be used instead of the standard registration. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.atl)
  • Re: update_attributes not saving data
    ... recall having a similar problem where specifying attr_accessor for my attribute resulted in the attribute being updated as NULL - not with the value I expected. ... I apparently have no clue how these models work yet... ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)