From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:50:05 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <46F02B21.69FA68B2@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7359f0490709180827h6978ae52re27825646a091ec8@mail.gmail.com>,
	<5d375e920709180838t4070c23al11bc0eb5cc7280c9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] simplicity
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c0d05584-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Uriel wrote:
> found this gem in one of the many X headers:
> #define NBBY    8       /* number of bits in a byte */

So what is supposed to be wrong with using a manifest constant
instead of hard-coding "8" in various places?  As I recall,
The Elements of Programming Style recommended this approach.

Similar definitions have been in Unix system headers for
decades.  CHAR_BIT is defined in <limits.h>. (Yes, I know
there is a difference between a char and a byte.  Less well
known, there is a difference between a byte and an octet.)

I'm not saying that some of the complaints don't have a
point, especially when important tools perform poorly.
However, I've observed an unusal degree of arrogance in
the Plan 9 newsgroup, approaching religion.  Plan 9's way
of doing things is not the only intelligent way; others
may have different goals and constraints that affect how
they do things in their particular environments.