Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 21:44:21 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Ben Smithurst <ben@FreeBSD.org>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Chris Faulhaber <jedgar@fxp.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/apply apply.c Message-ID: <200101052144.f05LiLi49413@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> of "Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:44:29 MST." <200101052044.f05KiUb56823@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <200101052027.f05KRHi48955@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Brian Somers writes:
> : Except that the paragraph that says
> :
> : These functions return the number of characters printed (not including
> : the trailing `\0' used to end output to strings).
> :
> : is wrong :-/
>
> No it isn't.
Oh yes it is :-) {v,}snprintf() does not return the number of
characters printed. In fact ``printed'' is a pretty lousy word to
use here anyway.
Unless you're interpreting ``printed'' to mean ``that would be
written to the buffer if ``size'' is sufficient''....
> At least not when read with the paragraph following it.
I think a lot of people are guilty of reading man pages 'till they
get the information they're looking for and then quitting.
> It becomes clear. However, having said that, we likely should use the
> wording from the standard. It is much easier to follow.
Yes. I agree.
> Warner
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101052144.f05LiLi49413>