format hex numbers

format hex numbers

[Eli Barzilay]

`format' drops digits beyond the least 7 when printing hex numbers,
since it inherits this behavior from `sprintf'.  I couldn't find any
documentation on this, and I couldn't get C to print more than 7
digits...  I'm still sending this hoping that someone knows better
than me...


In GNU Emacs 21.2.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, X toolkit, Xaw3d scroll bars)
 of 2002-03-27 on mojave.cs.cornell.edu
Important settings:
  value of $LC_ALL: nil
  value of $LC_COLLATE: POSIX
  value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
  value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
  value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
  value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
  value of $LC_TIME: nil
  value of $LANG: nil
  locale-coding-system: nil
  default-enable-multibyte-characters: t

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

Re: format hex numbers

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Eli Barzilay wrote:

> `format' drops digits beyond the least 7 when printing hex numbers,
> since it inherits this behavior from `sprintf'.

Can you please post an example?  I'm not sure I understand the report and 
the problem.

Re: format hex numbers

[David Kastrup]

eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 
> > `format' drops digits beyond the least 7 when printing hex numbers,
> > since it inherits this behavior from `sprintf'.
> 
> Can you please post an example?  I'm not sure I understand the report and 
> the problem.

It sounds almost like the OP is not aware that Elisp integers are
just 28 bits.

By the way, the last few recent bug reports I sent with Emacs CVS
never solicited one peep of a response.  Is emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
a dead address by now?  If it is, the CVS Emacs should send somewhere
else.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: format hex numbers

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 31 Mar 2002, David Kastrup wrote:

> By the way, the last few recent bug reports I sent with Emacs CVS
> never solicited one peep of a response.  Is emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> a dead address by now?

It's not dead; I've seen those messages.  I guess no one had time to work 
on your reports yet, or maybe just didn't reply.

Re: format hex numbers

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

> On 31 Mar 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > By the way, the last few recent bug reports I sent with Emacs CVS
> > never solicited one peep of a response.  Is emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> > a dead address by now?
> 
> It's not dead; I've seen those messages.  I guess no one had time to work 
> on your reports yet, or maybe just didn't reply.

BTW, what is the difference in circulation between bug-gnu-emacs and
emacs-pretest-bug?  The former is also gatewayed to gnu.emacs.bug,
that much I know.  I am just trying to find out what bug should best
be sent to which list.

Are the lists and the progress on individual reports logged
somewhere?

Thanks,

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: format hex numbers

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup)
> Date: 31 Mar 2002 15:08:17 +0200
> 
> BTW, what is the difference in circulation between bug-gnu-emacs and
> emacs-pretest-bug?

In general, emacs-pretest-bug is only read by a small number of
active developers.

> The former is also gatewayed to gnu.emacs.bug,
> that much I know.  I am just trying to find out what bug should best
> be sent to which list.

It's best to send reports about unreleased versions (CVS and
pretests) to emacs-pretest-bug.  "M-x report-emacs-bug" will do that
automatically for you, btw.

> Are the lists and the progress on individual reports logged
> somewhere?

The lists are archived, although the archive for emacs-pretest-bug is
not publicly available (archives of bug-gnu-emacs are accessible via
mailman).

There's no bug-tracking system for Emacs.  It would be nice to have
one, but someone will have to volunteer to set up and maintain that.

Re: format hex numbers

[Eli Barzilay]

David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) writes:

> It sounds almost like the OP is not aware that Elisp integers are
> just 28 bits.

The OP claims temporary insanity...

(I somehow got under the impression that there were a few more bits
there...)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!