From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-02 11:17:47
David Abrahams wrote:
> Since people seem to feel allegiance to the printf
Not me :). I don't like the idea of full-fledged support of printf format
directives at all; conversion characters (type indicators) are unsafe,
non-extensible and error-prone at best, they are not technically needed,
it's clearly not a C++ way of doing things, and including a support for them
is like bringing to life a dead person that most of the people prefer to see
dead :). Flags and precision specifications are type-dependent (and
therefore error-prone) too, and, personally, using the libraries that
require you to learn some fancy small "language" (even if it has managed to
become a standard one) have never been a pleasant experience. In some sense,
of course, iostream manipulators form a "fancy small language" too, but for
me there is a big difference between '-' and 'left' (or 'align_left').
Summarizing the above, my point is that while embedded positioning of the
arguments is clearly one of the main printf's strengths, embedded
formatting/type specifications seem much more like a weakness that is not
worth to be replicated ;).
> I am willing to sacrifice terseness and live with
> %1%, %2%, etc if there is no better alternative.
> I don't like it, but would live with it.
I don't like it either, and I would prefer the short form (%1, %2, etc.).
Finding a good syntax for specifying the formatting of arguments (not
embedded into format string) can be hard, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk