-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Zajcev Evgeny <zevlg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Sebastian Freundt <hroptatyr@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Sebastian Freundt <hroptatyr@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Steve Youngs <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Okay, next time I better change the subject, erm, and maybe wait until
>> there is some feedback. ;)
>>
>> This time, Steve and me decided following:
>> - The format specifier %u is nuked
>> - The format specifiers %x %X and %o are renamed to base_converters
>> - a number object passed to one of these is converted to integer
>> - negative integers are allowed
>>
>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>> Evgeny, do you need %u for eicq somewhere?
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Still not commented, maybe I might add a question there:
>> Does anybody know (existing and not-imaginary existing) lisp code, which
>> uses %u as format specifier (of course in the meaning of %u or %lu of
>> C-sprintf)?
>
> Never seen code which uses %u format, but i do know about code which
> uses %d in conjunction with `abs' :)
>
> BTW: grabbing for `%u' and `format' in all xemacs packages gives no
> matches ..
Yeah, I've done that, too, same result.
Steve was uncertain about %u in conjunction with eicq, he thought you
(already) use it or want to use it for SNACs since it can construct a
two-complement which is sometimes useful.
If this is not true, I hope nobody else will miss %u.
Sebastian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDfFvLlMmhrILJOQ4RAjJ1AKCKmLXAeFpy7TMVaZJRg+rWRL8fogCbBF5j
sBwA2UUPjyBkzBVRiKhmLXA=
=cG33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|