"Jacob S. Gordon" <[email protected]> writes: > Thanks for this perspective Max, I hadn’t considered how dropping > ‘printf’ in the manual could obscure things for those already > familiar. Mentioning both sounds like a good compromise; how about > ‘format’ in the manual text and we restore a footnote to explain the > connection?
Do you refer to -[fn:9] The printf reformatting is limited in precision because the -value passed to it is converted into an "integer" or "double". The -"integer" is limited in size by truncating the signed value to 32 -bits. The "double" is limited in precision to 64 bits overall which -leaves approximately 16 significant decimal digits. ? I do not think that the removed footnote is useful -- it talks about caveats of printf that do not apply to `format' (AFAIK). Rather than describing the connection in a footnote, what about just saying format (similar to ~printf~; see <ref to elisp#Formatting...>) > On 2025-12-15 12:06, Christian Moe wrote: >> it would be helpful if the manual also referred to the docstring of >> format or to [[info:elisp#Formatting Strings][elisp#Formatting >> Strings]] for details on how to construct format specifications. > > +1 +1 -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
