Re: setting resource limits

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter wrote:
> A much nicer way of doing it is with an explicit option to give the
> number of the limit.  This is more consistent with normal ulimit
> behaviour.

Yes, this does look better. Cheers.

It should probably produce an error for a negative number instead of
defaulting to the file size limit. The old code initialises res to -1
twice then checks for it at the end. I'd have thought it could just be
initialised to RLIMIT_FSIZE with the <0 test producing an error.

Is it worth doing the same for the limit and unlimit builtins too?

Oliver