From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_RELAYS autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 24253) id 1A6FEBC69; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:22:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:22:09 +0100 To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's formatting libraries Message-ID: <20071113092209.GC20423@yquem.inria.fr> References: <9d3ec8300711080617g1b023711o1a8f9aa50b7874@mail.gmail.com> <200711101458.04047.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200711101913.14541.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200711101913.14541.jon@ffconsultancy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: weis@yquem.inria.fr (Pierre Weis) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 weis:01 weis:01 printf:01 scanf:01 scanf:01 rocquencourt:01 caml-list:01 strings:01 pierre:02 pierre:02 bat:02 primitive:02 fix:05 fix:05 [...] > In this context, I would have thought that printf is very commonly used but > scanf is not. If scanf is difficult to fix then these features could simply > be removed from it. May be I was not clear in my previous messages: scanf is not difficult to fix since these features has never been introduced in scanf (hence removing them is particularly easy). The problem is not in scanf but in the primitive that checks the format strings compatibility. Best regards, -- Pierre Weis INRIA Rocquencourt, http://bat8.inria.fr/~weis/