> %V: Nicholas votes yes. Personally, I don't thinks it's justified.
I'm not going to lose sleep if it goes away, but what exactly is the
cost of keeping it? It's already implemented and working and used in a
hundred different places. It seems to me like changing all the
existing usages just so that you can be left with the exact same
behavior is like substituting every "they're" with "they are". Sure,
nothing is really lost in the translation, but nothing is gained
either, so why bother?
Besides, I think the brevity does have value and code can read better using %V:
bu_sscanf(input_str, "%#V%#V%#V", &user, &host, &command);
bu_log("%s@%s %s\n", bu_vls_cstr(&user), bu_vls_cstr(&host),
bu_vls_cstr(&command));
vs.
bu_sscanf(input_str, "%#V%#V%#V", &user, &host, &command);
bu_log("%V@%V %V\n", &user, &host, &command);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
