Hello Stephen 2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> ok, so what is proposed solution? > > My recommendation would be to match what glibc's printf does. > >> I see two possibilities - a) applying my current patch - although it >> is not fully correct, b) new patch, that do necessary check and raise >> more descriptive error message. > > Right, have a new patch that does error-checking and returns a better > error on that case, update the docs to reflect that restriction, and > then (ideally as an additional and independent patch..) implement the > width capability (and, ideally, the ability to pass the width as an > argument, as glibc supports) which matches the glibc arguments. > > Part of the reason that this restriction is in place, I believe, is > because glibc expects the width to come before any explicit argument > being passed and if an explicit argument is used for width then an > explicit argument has to be used for the value also, otherwise it > wouldn't be clear from the format which was the argument number and > which was the explicit width size.
I found one issue - if I disallow mixing positional and ordered style I break compatibility with previous implementation. so maybe third way is better - use fix from my patch - a behave is same like in glibc - and raise warning (instead errors) when mixing styles is detected - we can replace warnings by errors in future. What do you think? Regards Pavel > > I don't think it's a good idea to come up with our own format > definition, particularly one which looks so similar to the well-known > printf() format. > >> I have not strong preferences in this topic - both variants are >> acceptable for me and I invite any community opinion. But current >> state is not intuitive and should be fixed. > > Agreed. > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
