Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net> writes:
> lhs_spaces = available_width >> 1;
> rhs_spaces = available_width - lhs_spaces;
>
> + lhs_spaces = 0 < lhs_spaces ? lhs_spaces : 1;
> + rhs_spaces = 0 < rhs_spaces ? rhs_spaces : 1;
> +
> printf ("\n\n%*.*s%s%*.*s%s%*.*s%s\n\n\n",
> chars_per_margin, chars_per_margin, " ",
> date_text, lhs_spaces, lhs_spaces, " ",
> file_text, rhs_spaces, rhs_spaces, " ", page_text);
Why not this instead:
lhs_spaces = available_width >> 1;
rhs_spaces = available_width - lhs_spaces;
printf ("\n\n%*.*s%s%*s%s%*s%s\n\n\n",
chars_per_margin, chars_per_margin, " ",
date_text, lhs_spaces, " ",
file_text, rhs_spaces, " ", page_text);
In other words, instead of specifying both minimum width and precision, and
manually tweaking the result to be 1 if it was 0, what if we instead specify
only minimum width, and let the " " provide the guarantee of a width of 1 if
lhs_spaces is 0.
--
Eric Blake
