On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:43:05 +0200 Yann POUPET wrote:
> I did not want to modify a so widely used function, and did not want
> either to take the risk to break some compatibilities. If we chose, for
> example, something like %M for metric, what would happen for sofware
> who already use %M in their printf format string ? Right now,
> printf("%5M",(double)1/3)) will output "M". Of course, this syntax is
> weird since %M does not correspond to anything, but we cannot be sure
> it's not used somewhere.
on the other hand we should be grateful that the (hypothetical) ancestral
floating point challenged printf was extended to handle %f rather than
human_floating_point()
surely there must be room within the standard(s) to extend printf format
chars
-- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
