* [9fans] %p
@ 2001-07-13 22:44 David Gordon Hogan
2001-07-16 8:55 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-07-13 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
I really intensely dislike the way that "%p" under APE comes out
like "0X5F968". Does anyone know if the standards dictate this
aspect of the behaviour of "%p"? I don't mind the F, but the X
is just plain obnoxious.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] %p
2001-07-13 22:44 [9fans] %p David Gordon Hogan
@ 2001-07-16 8:55 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-07-16 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
David Gordon Hogan wrote:
> I really intensely dislike the way that "%p" under APE comes out
> like "0X5F968". Does anyone know if the standards dictate this
> aspect of the behaviour of "%p"? I don't mind the F, but the X
> is just plain obnoxious.
The C standard says that the external format is implementation-defined.
The 0X... syntax can be scanned back in as a hexadecimal integer, as
well as via scanf %p. I'm not sure why the APE uses capital letters
instead of lower-case, but having a 0x or 0X prefix when printing a
number in base 16 makes sense.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-07-16 8:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-07-13 22:44 [9fans] %p David Gordon Hogan
2001-07-16 8:55 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).