On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:38:08 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote
> Folks,
>
> Either perl 5 or libc is wrong (or my testcase is bogus, or the standard ...):
>
> $ perl -e'printf("!%03.2d!\n", 1)'
> !001!
>
> $ cc -Wall sprintf.c -o sprintf && ./sprintf '%03.2d' 1 # [1]
> ! 01!
>
> Parrot is currently following the 'official' aka libc behavior and is
> returning the latter result [2].
I think the standard specifies the 0 flag in %d should be ignored
when a precision is given. (However what I referred is JIS X 3010,
that is the Japanese translation from ISO/IEC 9899, but not ANSI).
I found it online, cf. http://man.he.net/man3/sprintf
0 specifying zero padding.
(..snip..)
If a precision is given with a numeric conversion
(d, i, o, u, i, x, and X), the 0 flag is ignored.
I think then printf("!%03.2d!\n", 1) should put out
the same string as one from printf("!%3.2d!\n", 1),
that is ! 01!
P.S. Another suspicious behavior of perl5's (s?)printf is
the following case: when a precision is negative (given through *).
printf("!%3.*s!\n", -1, "ab"); # should be like printf("!%3s!\n", "ab");
printf("!%3.*s!\n", 0, "ab");
printf("!%3.*s!\n", 1, "ab");
I think they should print
! ab!
! !
! a!
but perl5 does
! !
! !
! a!
Regards,
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
