Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15671 comp.os.minix:4659
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: What should [fs]scanf return?
Message-ID: <878@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 89 19:00:44 GMT
References: <588@forty2.UUCP> <594@midgard.Midgard.MN.ORG>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 12

>...I think it should be...

You're right.  It should be.  (And it is, on SunOS 4.0, which means it
probably is on S5R3 as well, since the 4.0 "scanf" code is derived from
the S5R3 "scanf" code....)

I don't know why BSD is confused; perhaps it treats suppressed
assignments as errors, or assumes that just because there were no
succesful assignments (because there were no assignments at all) the
call must have failed.  That's wrong.  I assume Minix is confused
because it 1) counts even suppressed assignments and 2) counts literal
matches (i.e., the ":" matched the ":"); that's also wrong.