Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:43:30 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <8296-Fri29Sep2000234330+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5h CC: Hans-Bernhard Broeker In-reply-to: (message from Hans-Bernhard Broeker on Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:03:18 +0200 (MET DST)) Subject: Re: scanf and invalid FP fields References: Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:03:18 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker > > +++ quote (7.9.6.2, paragraph [#9], sentence 2, in the C9x draft) > An input item is defined as the longest sequence of input characters which > does not exceed any specified field width and which is, > *or*is*a*prefix*of*, a matching input sequence. > +++ quote ends Thanks for the footwork, but I don't see how this makes the example correct; can you explain? In any case, the behavior of other libc's we saw in this thread also looks consistent with the Standard, so I think we should behave like the majority of libraries and break "100ergs" into 100.0 and "ergs". Do you agree?