On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 22:15:31 -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> > This was not a part of the PR and is completely cosmetic (surely it
> > supports plain %x if it does support %#x).  Why was this necessary?
> > (I know I would be quite miffed if someone made a change like that to
> > my code).
> Yes, that %x formatting change was not part of the PR, but I only
> changed 0x%x not plain %x.  I did it because as I was fixing the
> 0x%x in the log, I started changing them to %#jx so I did it
> globally in that directory for consistency.  It found two formats
> that were 0x%hu...
> So one can view it as a format consistency checker(not just cosmetic).

As I wrote in a follow up email, it changes formatting b/c you didn't
change field widths and IMO using %# with a field width is mostly
trouble to begin with.  It's not the first time someone tries to do
this without actually understanding the consequences of the change.
Please, can we assume that when people write either 0x%x or %#x they
most likely actaully mean it for whatever reason and that they want
that specific output format, and it's just rude to change that,
especially when you do so incorrectly.


Reply via email to