Subject: Re: Linux's printf() extensions
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Lucio de Re <>
List: tech-userlevel
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.