X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: 24 Nov 2003 08:15:48 +0200
Message-Id: <ubrr2e1gr.fsf@elta.co.il>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200311232114.hANLEpE8006294@delorie.com> (cvs@delorie.com)
Subject: Re: djgpp: djgpp/src/docs/kb/wc204.txi
References:  <200311232114 DOT hANLEpE8006294 AT delorie DOT com>
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: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:14:51 -0500
> From: "cvs-richdawe AT delorie DOT com" <cvs AT delorie DOT com>
> + 
> + @findex scanf AT r{, and assignment suppression}
> + A bug was fixed in the @code{scanf} family of functions,
> + when suppressing assignment of conversions to variables.
> + Previously the @code{scanf} family of functions could return
> + a match failure at EOF instead of @code{EOF}.

Could we have a more clear description of the previous behavior than
``could return a match failure at EOF''?  I think users will be
confused by this wording (I know I am).