On 10 Mar 02 at 11:14:26PM, Uri Guttman wrote: > i really think that the printf format spec is so standard and ingrained > that changing it with # for % or requiring \% is not a good idea. > > but then again, backwards compatibility is not a rule you must always > obey. i just think in this case it should be.
Especially as this is a case in which the functionality itself is not broken, and not itself under review, but rather that a seemingly unrelated proposed change to another part of the language is in effect breaking printf. If the printf formats were to be changed simply to accommodate other changes elsewhere, then they should really be looked at more generally: what would people like to get out of them, before we break them? But even then, backwards compatibility would be nice... Ian Boreham
