In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leopold Toetsch (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't look, if this is really intended, but I wouldn't like to behave > Parrot_snprintf different then snprintf(3). > > It would also be nice, if we could have a return value, consistent with > glibc 2.1. One slight problem with makeing Parrot_snprintf consistent with snprintf is that there are at least three different ways that snprintf is implemented on different platforms. It's probably best to do whatever C99 does, which I think is the same as what glibc does, namely to return the amount of space that would be needed to avoid truncation if the result is truncated. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/
