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: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:23:48 -0500 Message-ID: <87k5ksk1kb.fsf@stupidchicken.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=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203985535 32232 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2008 00:25:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:25:35 +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 01:26:00 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 1JTndv-0007Mi-32 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:25:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTndP-0003uW-4n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:25:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTndK-0003tr-Gs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:25:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTndH-0003tX-TT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:25:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTndH-0003tU-QZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:25:19 -0500 Original-Received: from cyd.mit.edu ([18.115.2.24]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTndH-000618-LL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:25:19 -0500 Original-Received: by cyd.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 541774E3F9; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:23:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Tue\, 26 Feb 2008 00\:27\:47 +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:90447 Archived-At: 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? Treating '-' and '0' as part of the width specifier is conceptually simpler, and the elisp manual documents these as such. If we treat '0' as a real flag, then maybe the description in the elisp manual should be revised.