Re: printf(3) wording

[Jan Stary]

On Nov 17 17:06:11, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> > are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
> perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
> and ask them?
> 
> whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
> to adjust a few more:
> 
> /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
> /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
> /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
> /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by

Hm, probably just my English;
sorry for the noise.

Jan

> jmc
> 
> > Index: printf.3
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3,v
> > retrieving revision 1.74
> > diff -u -p -r1.74 printf.3
> > --- printf.313 Oct 2015 12:25:04 -  1.74
> > +++ printf.317 Nov 2015 09:36:19 -
> > @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ This holds true even if the string has b
> >  using a function like
> >  .Fn snprintf ,
> >  as the resulting string may still contain user-supplied conversion 
> > specifiers
> > -for later interpolation by
> > +for later interpretation by
> >  .Fn printf .
> >  .Pp
> >  Be sure to use the proper secure idiom:
> > 

Re: printf(3) wording

[Jason McIntyre]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:14:33PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Nov 17 17:06:11, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> > > are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
> > > 
> > >   Jan
> > > 
> > 
> > i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
> > perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
> > and ask them?
> > 
> > whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
> > to adjust a few more:
> > 
> > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
> > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
> > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
> > /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by
> 
> Hm, probably just my English;
> sorry for the noise.
> 
>   Jan
> 

not neccessarily. the author may have been confused too. who knows. i
had to look up "interpolation" myself. it's a word i'd prefer to avoid
in man pages if we can ;)

jmc

Re: printf(3) wording

[Jason McIntyre]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
> 
>   Jan
> 

i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
and ask them?

whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
to adjust a few more:

/usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
/usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
/usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
/usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by

jmc

> Index: printf.3
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3,v
> retrieving revision 1.74
> diff -u -p -r1.74 printf.3
> --- printf.3  13 Oct 2015 12:25:04 -  1.74
> +++ printf.3  17 Nov 2015 09:36:19 -
> @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ This holds true even if the string has b
>  using a function like
>  .Fn snprintf ,
>  as the resulting string may still contain user-supplied conversion specifiers
> -for later interpolation by
> +for later interpretation by
>  .Fn printf .
>  .Pp
>  Be sure to use the proper secure idiom:
> 

Re: printf(3) wording

[Ted Unangst]

Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:14:33PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On Nov 17 17:06:11, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > > I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> > > > are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
> > > > 
> > > > Jan
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
> > > perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
> > > and ask them?
> > > 
> > > whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
> > > to adjust a few more:
> > > 
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by
> > 
> > Hm, probably just my English;
> > sorry for the noise.
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> not neccessarily. the author may have been confused too. who knows. i
> had to look up "interpolation" myself. it's a word i'd prefer to avoid
> in man pages if we can ;)

interpretation is the correct word to use.

Re: printf(3) wording

[Theo de Raadt]

> > > > i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
> > > > perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
> > > > and ask them?
> > > > 
> > > > whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
> > > > to adjust a few more:
> > > > 
> > > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
> > > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
> > > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
> > > > /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by
> > > 
> > > Hm, probably just my English;
> > > sorry for the noise.
> > > 
> > >   Jan
> > > 
> > 
> > not neccessarily. the author may have been confused too. who knows. i
> > had to look up "interpolation" myself. it's a word i'd prefer to avoid
> > in man pages if we can ;)
> 
> interpretation is the correct word to use.

another option is "expansion"

Re: printf(3) wording

[Amit Kulkarni]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jason McIntyre  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:14:33PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On Nov 17 17:06:11, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > > I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> > > > are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
> > > >
> > > >   Jan
> > > >
> > >
> > > i don;t know how these implementations work, so it's hard to say.
> > > perhaps they are interpolated. maybe use cvs to track down the author
> > > and ask them?
> > >
> > > whatever the outcome, if you want to change this text you probably want
> > > to adjust a few more:
> > >
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/err.3:for later interpolation by the
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/setproctitle.3:for later interpolation by
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/syslog.3:for later interpolation by
> > > /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3:for later interpolation by
> >
> > Hm, probably just my English;
> > sorry for the noise.
> >
> >   Jan
> >
>
> not neccessarily. the author may have been confused too. who knows. i
> had to look up "interpolation" myself. it's a word i'd prefer to avoid
> in man pages if we can ;)
>
>
jan is right, interpretation is the correct word. Interpolate is using
something to do mathematically. the program is going to work on, so
interpret...

Re: printf(3) wording

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2015-11-17, Jan Stary  wrote:

> I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
> are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?

I think "interpolated" as a technical term is correct here.
(The Perl documentation is very fond of it.)

>  using a function like
>  .Fn snprintf ,
>  as the resulting string may still contain user-supplied conversion specifiers
> -for later interpolation by
> +for later interpretation by
>  .Fn printf .
>  .Pp
>  Be sure to use the proper secure idiom:

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de

Re: printf(3) wording

[Richard Toohey]

On 11/18/15 07:16, Amit Kulkarni wrote:


jan is right, interpretation is the correct word. Interpolate is using
something to do mathematically. the program is going to work on, so
interpret...

Interpolate is a word I picked up when learning Perl and to do with 
strings, not just mathematically:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_interpolation

I'm not arguing for either word being better, I'll leave that to others.

Re: printf(3) wording

[Philip Guenther]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Christian Weisgerber
 wrote:
> On 2015-11-17, Jan Stary  wrote:
>
>> I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
>> are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?
>
> I think "interpolated" as a technical term is correct here.
> (The Perl documentation is very fond of it.)

Well, in perl that's in the context of expansion of variable
references inside quote operators, where the evaluated result has the
references inserted in theirs positions in the quote context.

In the context of printf(3), what will be interp*ed here is not the
conversion specifiers themselves but the strings that will result from
their processing.  I would therefore say that the conversion
specifiers are interpreted.

Note that the perlfunc(1) section on perl's sprintf() built-in talks
of the interpretation of the format letters, what printf(3) calls
conversions.


Put me firmly in the "interpreted" camp for this.


Philip Guenther

printf(3) wording

[Jan Stary]

I am not a native speaker, but the conversion specifiers
are "interpreted" by printf, not "interpolated", right?

Jan

Index: printf.3
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/stdio/printf.3,v
retrieving revision 1.74
diff -u -p -r1.74 printf.3
--- printf.313 Oct 2015 12:25:04 -  1.74
+++ printf.317 Nov 2015 09:36:19 -
@@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ This holds true even if the string has b
 using a function like
 .Fn snprintf ,
 as the resulting string may still contain user-supplied conversion specifiers
-for later interpolation by
+for later interpretation by
 .Fn printf .
 .Pp
 Be sure to use the proper secure idiom: