Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/21/2010 09:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Then, to get full seconds.nanoseconds, you'd use a format like %X.%:X >>> and if you want only milliseconds, you'd use %X.%3.3:X >> >> Oops. >> I forgot to zero-pad. Otherwise, with< 100,000,000ns in the first >> case or< 100 in the 2nd, and the above would print invalid numbers. >> >> This is the right way: >> >> To get full seconds.nanoseconds, you'd use a format like %X.%0:X >> and if you want only milliseconds, you'd use %X.%03.3:X > > Do we really want to require that users must manually 0-pad, or can we > explicitly state that %:X has a minimum width of min(precision,9), and > 0 padding is only needed if you want a width greater than 9.
That would be better, since I suspect there are very few uses of %:X that would *not* want leading zeros. Otherwise, we'd be setting up users of this feature for an insidious bug.
