>Next time do me a favor and save us both some time by NOT opening a PR.

You're making it sound like our time is equally valuable. Let me give it to you straight: My time that the time of everyone else here is just that: their time. You, on the other hand, are being generously reimbursed, no matter what you spend your time on. So do not come to the people doing your job for your and complain about them wasting your time. 

And, no doubt, you've seen many people thinking that the money is wasted. "Over-promise, under-deliver, profit," and "incapable" are the words floating around. If I thought that, then I wouldn't have bothered with this project in the first place. But right now you are proving them right by not only being ignorant but also being arrogant about it.

I didn't expect such a reaction from you or else I would have been more patient. This time, I'll be patient and explain it to you in more detail. Howover, if this is the level of "discussion" you want to force on other people, while being quite generous when it comes to your own code, then it is good that you've made this clear so early.

>"Laughable" is your argument that you would rather increase stack usage function by 1000%

You might want to check your math here. Yes I'd rather increase the stack usage by 100000% than give up thread safety. On Windows I have up to 1GB stack. On Linux and OS X I have 8MB. You know what 4KB of 8MB is? That's **0.05% of the total stack space**. 

And, as if that is not convincing enough, let's check how often vim uses MAXPATHL:

```
~/c/vim/src$ ack "\[MAXPATHL\]" | wc -l
51
```

Yes, that's right. Even vim, whose aim is to run on much more limited systems, uses arrays of size MAXPATHL at least 51 times in the code.

>you would rather increase stack usage

I'm not increasing anything. In the current code, `len` is always MAXPATHL. Given the overhead of VLAs, it is most likely that using MAXPATHL does, in fact, reduce stack usage.