Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Ted Unangst
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 15:06, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> Probably just my English comprehension, >> but "conversion such as end-of-file" bugs me. > > How about: > > The value EOF is returned if an input failure such as an end-of-file occurs > before any conversion. Yes.

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:03:10PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > better than mine, but better still with commas after "failure" and > > "end-of-file". > > > > jmc > > Like this? > yes. ok me. jmc > -Otto > > Index: scanf.3 > ===

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12:05PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:06:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > > > On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100,

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:45:22PM +0100, Matthias Appel wrote: > Am 05.03.2013 15:12, schrieb Jason McIntyre: > >On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:06:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > >>On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > >> > >>>On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: >

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Matthias Appel
Am 05.03.2013 15:12, schrieb Jason McIntyre: On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:06:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: The following part o

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:06:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > > The following part of the scanf(3) manpage > > >

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > The following part of the scanf(3) manpage > > > probably needs to be reworded: > > > > > > The value > > > .Dv EOF >

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > The following part of the scanf(3) manpage > > > probably needs to be reworded: > > > > > > The value > > > .Dv EOF >

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Jan Stary
On Mar 05 13:30:53, j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > The following part of the scanf(3) manpage > > probably needs to be reworded: > > > > The value > > .Dv EOF > > is returned if an input failure occurs before any conversion such as

Re: scanf(3) return value

2013-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40:52AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > The following part of the scanf(3) manpage > probably needs to be reworded: > > The value > .Dv EOF > is returned if an input failure occurs before any conversion such as an > end-of-file occurs. > > (I won't even attempt it, as

scanf(3) return value

2013-03-03 Thread Jan Stary
The following part of the scanf(3) manpage probably needs to be reworded: The value .Dv EOF is returned if an input failure occurs before any conversion such as an end-of-file occurs. (I won't even attempt it, as I am not sure what the behaviour actually is.)