From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13fdf88296c90ea01a2defa55e0326c6@collyer.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc/plan9
From: Geoff Collyer <geoff@collyer.net>
In-Reply-To: <006c01c34bf8$92c718c0$b9844051@insultant.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:35:02 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f90e2e32-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Good point; I rarely use scanf myself.  I have implemented it as part
of a larger stdio implementation though, and didn't take it too
seriously at first, since I don't really use it and I hadn't seen it
used much (e.g., if you grep the V7 source tree for it, there are few
or no uses of it).  One of my early testers countered that scanf was
used `everywhere'; it turns out that X11 uses it heavily.

Speaking of scanners, I found that somebody has modified flex to scan
Unicode input (and cranked up the table sizes appropriately).  I'm
wondering if it's worth modifying it further to scan UTF-8 instead so
it could be used instead of the sorts of tricks I've used to make lex
scan UTF-8.