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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4441ABC6C for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp24.orange.fr (smtp24.orange.fr [193.252.22.25]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5RAkZ2U020129 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:36 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2432.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C3E2C1C00093 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.162] (ALagny-153-1-98-23.w90-3.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.3.145.23]) by mwinf2432.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9E1581C0008D for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:35 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20070627104635647.9E1581C0008D@mwinf2432.orange.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <20070627083401.GA32745@snarc.org> References: <0AC5F6BF-D076-4561-B015-70E41954D248@lrde.epita.fr> <7A72D27B-4FF3-4483-8D42-B9904FA734E2@valdosta.edu> <86507DD0-1BCB-4BF9-A058-0809022E564C@lrde.epita.fr> <8503CBAB-EF9E-4CF0-89A8-2F6E454CF4DC@valdosta.edu> <20070627083401.GA32745@snarc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6663C68A-5088-40F4-99C8-8363A086D31E@lrde.epita.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Qu=F4c_Peyrot?= Subject: Re: [Caml-list] precision not working properly for strings in Printf? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:33 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 4682400B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; lrde:01 printf:01 ocaml:01 printf:01 scanf:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 wrappers:01 2007,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 glibc:01 glibc:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Vincent Hanquez wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:11:01AM -0400, Jonathan Bryant wrote: >> The OCaml standard library isn't glibc. The implementation of the >> Printf/Scanf modules is custom, OCaml specific and tied into the >> compiler, so one should not assume the behave the same way. They are >> not simply wrappers. As a matter of fact, they have several other >> differences from the glibc printf family of functions (look at the >> conversion specifiers in the docs). >> >>> As said above, this is not how printf is working in the glibc (at >>> least on linux and Mac OS X). Any clue why the same convention has >>> not been followed? >> >> See above. > > What about reading before replying ? > Your "explanation" certainly doesn't answer his question. > whether or not it's the same *implementation* doesn't answer why ocaml > printf choosed a different *convention* (specially on this case =20 > which I > don't see any contradiction in the way ocaml works). Thanks for your support ;) I was starting to wonder why I was getting such dismissive answers --=20 Best Regards, Qu=F4c