Thread: Did I misunderstand any printf modifiers?

So far this is how I'm treating the modifiers in my custom implementation:

Code:

/* Defaults used if %> is not used to switch to another set
 *
 * In all cases these modifiers are read directly instead of via callbacks:
 *
 * + Same as standard printf definition, forces a sign for numbers
 * - Same as standard printf definition, left justifies output
 * # Same as standard printf definition, applies prefix, for numbers it's the
 *   usual 0x0, 0b0, 00 etc, for strings it's instead L", u8" etc, similar for
 *   characters: L', u', U' etc
 * ! Applies suffix, for numbers this means ULL etc, for strings it's just ",
 *   for characters it's just '
 * ? Where conversions of character encoding need to be done, if a character
 *   that cannot be converted appears, this character is substituted, expects
 *   a pawd (int) which is then stored in a pawc (char, PAWVA_DATA->sub)
 * . Indicates precision is to be read in from that point onwards
 * * Prior to the . character indicates minimum characters to output, after the
 *   . character indicates the number of digits after the decimal . to output
 * */

>, ! and ? are my own additions obviously, the only one I'm feel is wrong is the * modifier

Originally Posted by hamster_nz

'*' after the decimal applies a little differently to strings.

I haven't been able to find information on that, yet I vaguely remember reading somewhere it meant the length of the passed string, is that correct?

Originally Posted by hamster_nz

Look under "Precision" in printf(3) - Linux manual page for a full description.

ty, wish I'd though of the linux man pages, oh well, at least I now have a lot more info I didn't have before