2012/12/30 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > 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.
this is exactly what gcc does - and without breaking applications. > > 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
