Aug. 3, 2004
9:23 a.m.
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 serious. > * 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"? Oops. %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@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc | |