Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe08.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: PRI* considered harmful
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix)
References: <87mxgqhk3x.fsf@once.weird.com> <iv427t$ed2$1@dont-email.me> <8762ndhnfs.fsf@once.weird.com> <lntyaxztes.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87oc15g10i.fsf@once.weird.com> <lnhb6xzmbf.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87zkkpef5z.fsf@once.weird.com> <ln8vs8zpj6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87r560c6pp.fsf@once.weird.com> <97rmoaFc7oU1@mid.dfncis.de> <lny607w97e.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <97rom4Fqt5U1@mid.dfncis.de> <lntyavw7qa.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
From: "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org>
X-Face: .}E4CW({2'v<<BDc642q8+(>\JefgY&(9#RJD?~_7.KTC$+RklqwlB/<)^)~X0i*<gQhb;P ,]kHmiY*(6L>J?m)SXpHA8'9FHn5Fz*eVTH5=_C>]XK#"dLOyD`#tbEh1_8v-hwwR{.X)+b-!\4mM] 1HqG#"@VSI$1MNvRk\4>qsCclW|Ns4V/2poz=gS-+~m8\%5eVq]a\3.>T>U/f8A
Message-ID: <87ei1zc8qn.fsf@once.weird.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7aJfB+709o2MSN2RiOZz2bDCPsk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.67.98.78
X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: newsfe08.iad 1310255552 24.67.98.78 (Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:52:32 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:52:32 UTC
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:52:32 -0700
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.std.c:697

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>
> The proposal in the article that started this thread was to add
> things like "%Si" to printf, something that could be done in a
> backward-compatible manner.  One problem with that proposal is that
> it would require integer types with the same size and signedness to
> be passed identically as variadic arguments, something the standard
> doesn't currently require.

Thanks!  I hadn't considered the narrower-than-int issues and the
default promotion rules yet, but I think those too can be hidden
transparently within the INTPARAM() macro.

I think I should probably do a proper implementation and test it more
completely.

-- 
						Greg A. Woods
						RoboHack

<woods@robohack.ca>     living on the edge      http://www.robohack.ca/