Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:43:30 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <8296-Fri29Sep2000234330+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5h
CC: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009291454570.29790-100000@acp3bf> (message from
	Hans-Bernhard Broeker on Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:03:18 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: scanf and invalid FP fields
References:  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10009291454570 DOT 29790-100000 AT acp3bf>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:03:18 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
> 
> +++ quote (7.9.6.2, paragraph [#9], sentence 2, in the C9x draft)
> An input item is defined as the longest sequence of input characters which
> does not exceed any specified field width and which is,
> *or*is*a*prefix*of*, a matching input sequence.
> +++ quote ends

Thanks for the footwork, but I don't see how this makes the example
correct; can you explain?

In any case, the behavior of other libc's we saw in this thread also
looks consistent with the Standard, so I think we should behave like
the majority of libraries and break "100ergs" into 100.0 and "ergs".

Do you agree?