> It'd be consistent with all the other %p<foo> types. > > vsnprintf is already weird enough with %p uses, > there's absolutely no reason to stretch it further > with yet another odd access/format style.
Well, all the other %p<foo> types actually *use* the void * argument. They print the thing pointed to, just in different ways. What I'm proposing is fundamentally different, and much more "printf internals" specific. I hate creating an interface that requires a dummy pointer argument. This would already be quite different in , and I hate creating a new interface that requires a dummy pointer argument. One nonsensical combination that gcc does *not* complain about is "%0-c". (It does bitch about "%-0c", however.) Is "%0-127c" too ugly to live? Note that I could generalize it, and allow "%0-<width>" to mean "left-align, with trailing padding to column <width>" for ANY format specifier if that would help. It's easy in the printf code to compute the field width necessary to make that work. ANSI C says that %0- is permitted and means the same thing as %- (- overrides 0), but that could be bent. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
