Re: NAME_MAX usage not consistent across man pages

[Jukka Ruohonen <jruohonen%iki.fi@localhost>]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:35:01AM +0200, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> I don't think we must necessary do the same for all defined
> values...
> 
> For NAME_MAX and a few others, while they are indeed defined values,
> they are refered in man pages more as symbolic limits. My point here
> was to follow the opengroup typographic conventions.

I don't have strong opinions whether it is FOO_MAX or {FOO_MAX}.

It is just markup, and the point of markup is that you can change the
typographic output easily, as long as you use the markup consistently.

- Jukka.