On 2017/12/09 11:36, Valery Ushakov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 09:43:56 +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
christos suggests that you wrote another version of fmtcheck(3) which
recognizes positional arguments. Did you?
Oh, apparently I did. Then, iirc, I discovered we already have
fmtcheck(), so
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 09:43:56 +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> christos suggests that you wrote another version of fmtcheck(3) which
> recognizes positional arguments. Did you?
Oh, apparently I did. Then, iirc, I discovered we already have
fmtcheck(), so the exercise became kinda pointless. I
Hi,
christos suggests that you wrote another version of fmtcheck(3) which
recognizes positional arguments. Did you?
We are discussing how fmtcheck(3) should be. Previously, it allows
format strings consuming less arguments than the default one, as long
as consumed args are of correct types.
In article <6d721e06-9011-055c-d9e9-e6c0cdccd...@rk.phys.keio.ac.jp>,
Rin Okuyama wrote:
>On 2017/12/08 20:44, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
>>> is meaningless in Japanese, which does not distinguish the
On 2017/12/08 20:44, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
is meaningless in Japanese, which does not distinguish the singular and
plural. However, this kind of matter can not handled in the framework
anyway; how should we do when we do not want
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> is meaningless in Japanese, which does not distinguish the singular and
> plural. However, this kind of matter can not handled in the framework
> anyway; how should we do when we do not want the 3rd, but need the 4th
> arguments?
Use
On 2017/12/07 22:55, Robert Elz wrote:> I made a change to:
src/tests/lib/libc/gen: t_fmtcheck.c
Log Message:
Correct a couple of broken test cases:
"%d" does not take the same args as "%d %s"
"%%" does not take the same args as "%llx"
How did these ever