From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: doc string of `format' - FLAGS unexplained Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:05:53 +0100 Message-ID: <47C357E1.8040802@gmail.com> References: <003c01c8767e$115f1520$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> <87r6f0wrxe.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203984385 29002 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2008 00:06:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 26 01:06:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JTnLD-0001NI-6m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:06:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTnKh-0002Ug-9v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:06:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTnKd-0002UF-UM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:06:04 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTnKc-0002TN-B0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:06:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTnKc-0002TJ-8o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:06:02 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTnKb-0002X3-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:06:01 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:62419 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JTnKZ-00089o-9I; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:06:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <87r6f0wrxe.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080225-0, 2008-02-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JTnKZ-00089o-9I. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1JTnKZ-00089o-9I fdd37f25a3ef1e2743cd5ce916579fe2 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90446 Archived-At: Chong Yidong wrote: > I'd like to propose the following change to the doc string of > `format'. > > In particular, the statement "flags is [-+ #0]+" is misleading; it > should be [+ #]+, since the - and 0 characters are actually used to > identify the width specifier instead. > > Any thoughts? How nice with a readable description of those formats. But > ! %character > ! > ! where flags is [+ #]+, width is [0-9]+, and precision is .[0-9]+ ! where is [+ #0]+, width is [1-9][0-9]*, and precision is .[0-9]+ is perhaps more accurate. `0' is a flag that gives leading 0:s, isn't it? And perhaps is it more logical to write then just flags?