From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: doc string of `format' - FLAGS unexplained Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:33:39 -0500 Message-ID: <874pbvpti4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <003c01c8767e$115f1520$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> <87r6f0wrxe.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87k5ksk1kb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204043750 18125 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2008 16:35:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 26 17:36:15 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 1JU2md-0003Ti-BT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:35:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JU2m6-00081L-7y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JU2ly-0007zI-ND for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:18 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JU2lt-0007y0-I3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JU2lt-0007xq-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:13 -0500 Original-Received: from cyd.mit.edu ([18.115.2.24]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JU2ls-0002sR-Tt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:13 -0500 Original-Received: by cyd.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9167C4E3F9; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:33:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Tue\, 26 Feb 2008 13\:07\:23 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:90510 Archived-At: Andreas Schwab writes: > Chong Yidong writes: > >> Andreas Schwab writes: >> >>> Chong Yidong writes: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> This is wrong. '-' and '0' are real flags that can be freely mixed with >>> other flags, eg. "%0#10d" is valid and the same as "%#010d". They are >>> never considered part of the width. >> >> The question is, do we regard this as an undocumented side-effect of >> the implementation? > > It works the same as in C, which is widely understood. Gratuitous > differences only confuse people. True enough. I've checked in a corrected docstring that treats - and 0 as flags.