Subject: Re: Linux's printf() extensions
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Lucio de Re <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/24/1998 10:39:00
According to der Mouse:
> ...this is
> why I said that if argument N is not used, then no argument M, M>N, can
> be used, if it is to be possible for it to function correctly.
> At least not without major rewriting of existing calling conventions.
One could make that an implementation proviso, namely that scanning has
to start at $1 and will forcibly be terminated at $N where $N is the
largest consecutive counter. Sounds like a small sacrifice for what
strikes me as a useful option. In most instances, this would suffice
and the proviso is unlikely to bite a careful or sensible programmer.
One might also want to allow for a "skip" field along the lines of
scanf()'s %* to assist where arguments must legitimately be left out.
Sounds a bit of a botch, but it would serve some purpose.