Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!gwyn@Brl.ARPA
From: gwyn@Brl.ARPA (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  ugliness in scanf(3)
Message-ID: <10496@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 22:55:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10496
Posted: Tue May  7 22:55:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 02:48:29 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 6

That's not a bug, it's a feature.  How else would you be able
to determine what comes next when a scanf stops prematurely?
If it ate the "failing" character, you could never see what it
was.  I think the routine was designed on the assumption that
the programmer would not be so stupid as to keep trying to
scan a chunk of input over & over with the same failing format.