Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!tank!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: "%02d" vs "%.2d"
Message-ID: <15690@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 89 03:44:06 GMT
References: <104@rpi.edu> <198@broadway.UUCP> <6951@june.cs.washington.edu> <13368@ncoast.ORG>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 12

In article <13368@ncoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>One other reason as well:  it's not possible to get zero padding when using
>variable width fields (%*d) under the old scheme.

	printf("%0*d", width, value)

works fine.  (`Note that 0 is a flag, not a field width'....)

(Of course, there may be any number of implementations that got this wrong.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris