Quentin Garnier wrote:

>>> s/16/LOGIN_NAME_MAX/
>> why?
> 
> 1. raw numbers like this are wrong.
> 2. the best example of 1. is that LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 17.
> 3. someone might wish to run a system with a different LOGIN_NAME_MAX,
>    for whatever reason (although it's not recommended, and not made
>    easy either).

maybe I'm missing something, but the keyword is replaced with a number,
not a string...

-e.

-- 
Elad Efrat