This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Silently passing wrong input for good one

Paolo Carlini wrote:
[...]

Another option would be to just fail in that case. But then we have to
avoid mentioning scanf

I think that's a given if our goal is to fix issue 23.

or, at least, ask the C committee for a
clarification about the behavior of the latter, because, at variance
with EXAMPLE 3 that interestingly you mention, *all* the implementions
that you mentioned, *succesfully* extract -3.0,

Which is incorrect. How funny!

the divergence in
behavior is only about what happens afterwards!


I can't say I'm teribly surprised in this corner case. Still,
I would expect libc implementers to try all the examples in
the standard and either get them to work or file a defect.

Martin

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]