From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <virgile.prevosto@m4x.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385C0BBBB
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:03:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (dhcp-rocq-166.inria.fr [128.93.62.166])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k0RF39Fr022851
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:03:09 +0100
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:03:18 +0100
From: Virgile Prevosto <virgile.prevosto@m4x.org>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] printf & scanf oddity
Message-ID: <20060127160318.11667754@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20060127142622.GA8216@ours.starynkevitch.net>
References: <20060127142622.GA8216@ours.starynkevitch.net>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.100 (GTK+ 2.8.10; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43DA362D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 printf:01 scanf:01 basile:01 ocaml:01 printf:01 sprintf:01 scanf:01 sscanf:01 char:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 literals:01 sscanf:01 tutto:98 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3

Hello,
Le ven 27 jan 2006 15:26:22 CET, Basile STARYNKEVITCH a écrit:
> % ocaml
>         Objective Caml version 3.09.1
> 
> # Printf.sprintf "_a%d_f%d" 1 2;;
> - : string = "_a1_f2"
> # Scanf.sscanf "_a1_f2" "_a%d_f%d" (fun x y -> x,y);;
> Exception:
> Scanf.Scan_failure
>  "scanf: bad input at char number 5: looking for '_', found 'f'".
> 

I'd say that it comes from the fact that in ocaml syntax '_' can be used
to separate blocks of numerals in integer and float literals:
the first integer read by sscanf is "1_" and not "1". There might be a
workaround by using %[0-9] instead of %d (and int_of_string in the final
computation of course).


-- 
E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta
Virgile