>>>>> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> >>>>> on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:00:29 +0200 writes:
vQ> Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>>> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> >>>>>>> on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:49:54 +0200 writes: [......................] [......................] >> >> BTW, >> >> 1) sprintf("%n %g", 1,1) also seg.faults >> >> >> vQ> as do >> vQ> sprintf('%n%g', 1, 1) vQ> sprintf('%n%') >> vQ> etc., while >> vQ> sprintf('%q%g', 1, 1) vQ> sprintf('%q%') >> vQ> work just fine. strange, because per ?sprintf 'n' is not recognized as vQ> a format specifier, so the output from the first two above should be as vQ> from the last two above, respectively. (and likewise in the %S case, vQ> discussed and bug-reported earlier.) >> >> I have now fixed these bugs at least; >> vQ> great, i'm going to torture the fix soon ;) there will be another one, still today, fixing the sprintf("%s", tryCatch(stop(), error=identity)) bug {which actually *is* a subtle, too} >> the more subtle "%<too_large_n>d" ones are different, and >> as I said, I'm convinced that a nice & clean fix for those will >> start using snprintf(). >> >> >> 2) Did you have a true use case where the 8192 limit was an >> >> undesirable limit? >> vQ> how does it matter? >> >> well, we could increase it, if it did matter. >> {{ you *could* have been more polite here, no? >> vQ> i don't see how i could be more polite here, i had absolutely no vQ> intention to be impolite and didn't think i were. vQ> i gave a serious answer by means of a serious question. increasing an vQ> arbitrary, poorly documented limit of obscure effect is hardly any vQ> solution. suggesting that a bug is not a bug because some limit is not vQ> likely to be exceeded in practice is not a particularly good idea. But that's exactly what I did NOT suggest!! It was a serious question, *related* to your bug report, but *NOT* really on the bug report proper. [It *was* under the "heading" of 'BTW' which I assumed you knew to interpret] I was seriously asking, if BTW, the limit which is there was possibly to be increased or not... >> it *was* after all a serious question that I asked! }} >> vQ> if you set a limit, be sure to consistently enforce vQ> it and warn the user on attempts to exceed it. or write clearly in the vQ> docs that such attempts will cause the output to be silently truncated. >> >> Sure, I'm not at all disagreeing on that, and if you read this into my >> posting, you misunderstand. >> vQ> no, i didn't read that into your posting, i'm just referring to the vQ> state of the 'art' in r. [not so funny... yet another "very polite" assumption.] vQ> cheers, vQ> vQ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel