Fwd: Re: fmtcheck() query

[Rin Okuyama <rokuyama%rk.phys.keio.ac.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

christos suggests that you wrote another version of fmtcheck(3) which
recognizes positional arguments. Did you?

We are discussing how fmtcheck(3) should be. Previously, it allows
format strings consuming less arguments than the default one, as long
as consumed args are of correct types. Recently, I've changed it to
reject such a string as documented in man page. However, we are not
sure which behavior is preferable.

Both may be incomplete. fmtcheck(3) should support positional args.
Then, format strings should be allowed if consumed args have correct
types, and the number of args is less than or equal to the default one.

How do you think? And how is your version?

rin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
To: tech-userlevel%netbsd.org@localhost
From: Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: fmtcheck() query
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 22:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <p0f3ms$qqp$1%blaine.gmane.org@localhost>

In article <6d721e06-9011-055c-d9e9-e6c0cdccd8ce%rk.phys.keio.ac.jp@localhost>,
Rin Okuyama  <rokuyama%rk.phys.keio.ac.jp@localhost> wrote:
> On 2017/12/08 20:44, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> > > is meaningless in Japanese, which does not distinguish the singular and
> > > plural. However, this kind of matter can not handled in the framework
> > > anyway; how should we do when we do not want the 3rd, but need the 4th
> > > arguments?
> >
> > Use the positional arguments.
>
> Oops. It is another example that fmtcheck, besides I, does not
> take into account...

I thought Uwe wrote a version that did? What happened with that? It was neat.

christos