Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Keywords: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting C standard interpretations
Message-ID: <26889@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 90 07:40:50 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 23

In article <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
posts a number of interpretations, including:
>	For scanf("%5e",&f) with next available input sequence "1.2e+4xy",
>	all relevant scan termination checks are to be applied for each
>	successive character before inputting another character; thus a
>	"matching failure" finally occurs after 5 characters are
>	successfully examined for strtod() subject string expected-form
>	acceptability, and the next unread character will be '4' ("e+" is
>	NOT pushed back onto the input).

A `matching failure'?  In other words, such a scanf() call would return 0,
not 1?  `e+' is lost?  Pity, after all that work I went through to make it
right.  :-)

Seriously, I think it is much better for the library to scan the number
as `1.2' and leave the `e+4xy' unread.  This turns out not to be too
difficult.

(I would have to check my copy of the last draft to verify the words I
use above, but I am here and it is not....)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris