Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Tue Aug 3 09:23:25 UTC 2004
Paul Eggert said:
>> A case would have to be made for this.
> The case is pretty simple:
> * In practice more programs rely on the exactly-26-byte behavior,
> (which is still documented in many manuals) than in the
> standard-mandated behavior.
This may be true. However, making a Quiet Change to a published standard is
a serious matter, since it potentially breaks existing working code. Doing
this in favour of code that does not conform to the Standard is even more
> * Many popular implentations fail to conform to the standard for
> years less than 1000. This includes the current versions of
> Solaris and HP-UX. No doubt there are others.
Broken implementations aren't exactly a great argument either. What about
those implementations that are currently conforming?
>>> Can't we easily fix things by changing the standard to say that it's
>>> implementation-specified as to whether the format uses %d or %4d for
>>> the year?
>> Actually %.4d would be better.
> Wouldn't that print the year -9 as "-0009"?
%04d would be better in my opinion, though I'm willing to debate it. In
particular, "0093" is clearly a long time ago; " 93" could be 1993.
>> I'm not saying this is a hopeless cause, because this *is* clearly a
>> case where WG14/X3J11 messed up.
> OK. What's the next step, if we'd like to pursue this more formally?
I'm discussing it on the WG14 mailing list.
> How does one file a defect report against the C Standard these days?
Through your National Body.
I will draft one when I have some spare time.
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the tz