RE: [avr-libc-dev] sscanf

[Darcy Watkins]

Hi,

I entered a bug report (#14104) for it.

Thanks everyone for your comments.  I agree, a lot of the standards could be
more precisely worded.  You want to see confusing words, try deciphering
documentation by a certain software company about their FAT file system.
;-)


Regards,

Darcy

--------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy L. Watkins             email: address@hidden
Senior Software Developer++  phone: (604) 455-2000
TASC Systems, Inc.           fax:   (604) 888-2712
9415 - 202 Street,           web:   http://www.tascsystems.com
Langley B.C. Canada V1M 4B5
--------------------------------------------------------------



-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Wunsch [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:01 PM
To: Darcy Watkins
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] sscanf


As Darcy Watkins wrote:

> The return value should be the number of fields assigned (and not
> count those with assignment suppressed).

That half-sentence in the brackets is your own though.  I wish the
standard had that explicit wording.  But it appears you are right,
it's the number of assignments that ought to be returned, not the
number of successful conversions.

> This behaviour is observed in both the minimalist and floating scanf
> libraries.

Sure, there's no reason why they would be different.

Please open a bug report for this at

https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?group=avr-libc

--
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)