Thank you for committing this patch.
Applied with some mostly-cosmetic adjustments. I also took the
liberty of changing some of the error message texts to line up
more closely with the expanded documentation (eg, use format
specifier not conversion specifier because that's the phrase
used
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
[ format-width-20130305.patch ]
Applied with some mostly-cosmetic adjustments. I also took the liberty
of changing some of the error message texts to line up more closely
with the expanded documentation (eg, use format specifier not
Hello,
Patches can be reviewed by more than one people. It's particularly
useful if they have different things to say. So don't hesitate to
review patches that have already been reviewed by other people.
Thanks for the advice. I was anxious about who among the
reviewers is, and when to make
Hello,
I think that the only other behavioural glitch I spotted was that it
fails to catch one overflow case, which should generate an out of
ranger error:
select format('|%*s|', -2147483648, 'foo');
Result: |foo|
because -(-2147483648) = 0 in signed 32-bit integers.
Ouch.
2013/3/5 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Hello,
I think that the only other behavioural glitch I spotted was that it
fails to catch one overflow case, which should generate an out of
ranger error:
select format('|%*s|', -2147483648, 'foo');
Result: |foo|
On 5 March 2013 13:46, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/3/5 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Hello,
I think that the only other behavioural glitch I spotted was that it
fails to catch one overflow case, which should generate an out of
ranger error:
2013/3/5 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 5 March 2013 13:46, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/3/5 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Hello,
I think that the only other behavioural glitch I spotted was that it
fails to catch one overflow case,
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI escribió:
Umm. sorry,
If you have no problem with this, I'll send this to committer.
I just found that this patch already has a revewer. I've seen
only Status field in patch list..
Patches can be reviewed by more than one people. It's particularly
useful if they have
Hello
2013/2/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 February 2013 11:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Umm. sorry,
If you have no problem with this, I'll send this to committer.
I just found that this patch already has a revewer. I've seen
only Status
Hello, Could you let me review this patch?
* merged Dean's doc
* allow NULL as width
I understand that this patch aims pure expansion of format's
current behavior and to mimic the printf in SUS glibc (*1).
(*1) http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/printf.html
This patch
Umm. sorry,
If you have no problem with this, I'll send this to committer.
I just found that this patch already has a revewer. I've seen
only Status field in patch list..
Should I leave this to you, Dean?
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Hello
I have no objections,
Thank you for update
Regards
Pavel
2013/2/28 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Hello, Could you let me review this patch?
* merged Dean's doc
* allow NULL as width
I understand that this patch aims pure expansion of format's
current
On 28 February 2013 11:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Umm. sorry,
If you have no problem with this, I'll send this to committer.
I just found that this patch already has a revewer. I've seen
only Status field in patch list..
Should I leave this to you, Dean?
Hello
2013/2/13 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 11 February 2013 14:29, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
updated patch
* merged Dean's doc
* allow NULL as width
Hi,
I have not had time to look at this properly, but it doesn't look as
though you have fixed
On 11 February 2013 14:29, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
updated patch
* merged Dean's doc
* allow NULL as width
Hi,
I have not had time to look at this properly, but it doesn't look as
though you have fixed the other problem I mentioned up-thread, with %s
for NULL
On 10 February 2013 12:37, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Here is my first draft. I've also attached the generated HTML page,
because it's not so easy to read an SGML patch.
nice
I have only one point - I am think, so format function should be in
table 9-6 - some small text with
Hello
updated patch
* merged Dean's doc
* allow NULL as width
Regards
Pavel
2013/2/11 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 10 February 2013 12:37, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Here is my first draft. I've also attached the generated HTML page,
because it's not so easy to
2013/2/10 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 9 February 2013 18:30, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
There are a new question
what should be result of
format(%2$*1$s, NULL, hello)
???
My first thought is that a NULL width should be treated the same as no
width at all
2013/1/31 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
I am sending rewritten code
Nice. I think this will be very useful, and it looks like it now
supports everything that printf() does for %s format specifiers, and
it's good that %I and %L behave the same. Also the code is looking
cleaner.
It
2013/2/9 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
2013/1/31 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
I am sending rewritten code
Nice. I think this will be very useful, and it looks like it now
supports everything that printf() does for %s format specifiers, and
it's good that %I and %L behave
Hello
2013/1/29 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 29 January 2013 08:19, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
* The width field is optional, even if the '-' flag is specified. So
'%-s' is perfectly legal and should be interpreted as '%s'. The
current implementation treats it
Hello
minor update - fix align NULL for %L
Regards
Pavel
2013/1/31 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
2013/1/29 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 29 January 2013 08:19, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
* The width field is optional, even if the '-' flag is
On 28 January 2013 20:32, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
In general a format specifier looks like:
%[parameter][flags][width][.precision][length]type
This highlights another problem with the current implementation ---
the '-' flag and the width field need to be parsed
On 29 January 2013 08:19, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
* The width field is optional, even if the '-' flag is specified. So
'%-s' is perfectly legal and should be interpreted as '%s'. The
current implementation treats it as a width of 0, which is wrong.
Oh, but of course a
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
Starting with the first patch - it issues a new WARNING if the format
string contains a mixture of format specifiers with and without
parameter indexes (e.g.,
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 28 January 2013 20:40, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
flags - not currently implemented. Pavel's second patch adds support
for the '-' flag
2013/1/29 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2013 20:32, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
In general a format specifier looks like:
%[parameter][flags][width][.precision][length]type
This highlights another problem with the current implementation ---
the '-'
On 26 January 2013 10:58, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
updated patches due changes for better variadic any function.
apply fix_mixing_positinal_ordered_placeholders_warnings_20130126.patch first
Hi,
No one is listed as a reviewer for this patch so I thought I would
take a
Hello
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2013 10:58, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
updated patches due changes for better variadic any function.
apply fix_mixing_positinal_ordered_placeholders_warnings_20130126.patch first
Hi,
No one is listed
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
Starting with the first patch - it issues a new WARNING if the format
string contains a mixture of format specifiers with and without
parameter indexes (e.g., 'Hello %s, %1$s').
Having thought
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
applications out there that depend on the current behavior. As Dean
says, it's not incompatible with SUS, just a
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
applications out there that depend on the current
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
On 28 January 2013 20:40, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 28 January 2013 20:40, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
flags - not currently implemented. Pavel's second patch adds support
for the '-' flag for left justified string output. However,
Hello
2012/12/31 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
2012/12/31 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing
positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing
positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc
raises warnings there.
But mixing is not explicitly disallowed in doc, and mixing was tested
in
2012/12/31 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing
positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc
raises warnings there.
But mixing is not explicitly
Hello
2012/12/31 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing
positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc
raises warnings there.
But mixing is not
Hello Stephen
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
ok, so what is proposed solution?
My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does.
I see two possibilities - a) applying my current patch - although it
is not fully
2012/12/30 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello Stephen
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
ok, so what is proposed solution?
My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does.
I see two possibilities - a)
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I found one issue - if I disallow mixing positional and ordered style
I break compatibility with previous implementation.
Can you elaborate? In the previous example, an error was returned when
mixing (not a terribly good one, but still
Hello
2012/12/31 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I found one issue - if I disallow mixing positional and ordered style
I break compatibility with previous implementation.
Can you elaborate? In the previous example, an error was
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I found so we doesn't have functionality for simply text aligning - so
I propose support width for %s like printf's behave. glibc
implementation knows a rule for precision, that I don't would to
implement, because it is oriented to bytes
Hello
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I found so we doesn't have functionality for simply text aligning - so
I propose support width for %s like printf's behave. glibc
implementation knows a rule for precision, that I
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
This is correct, if we're matching glibc (and SUS, I believe), isn't it?
You're not allowed to mix '%2$s' type parameters and '%s' in a single
format.
I am not sure, please recheck
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
2012/12/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
This is correct, if we're matching glibc (and SUS, I believe), isn't it?
You're not allowed to mix '%2$s' type parameters and '%s' in a single
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
ok, so what is proposed solution?
My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does.
I see two possibilities - a) applying my current patch - although it
is not fully correct, b) new patch, that do necessary check and raise
more
48 matches
Mail list logo
