> I guess that to assume otherwise, one would have to make sure the > pointer does not correspond to a "%n" (or similar, perhaps even future) > conversion specifier. >
Oh, wow, I didn't know about the %n specifier. Thanks Martin!
> I guess that to assume otherwise, one would have to make sure the > pointer does not correspond to a "%n" (or similar, perhaps even future) > conversion specifier. >
Oh, wow, I didn't know about the %n specifier. Thanks Martin!