Robert Klemme
2/1/2008 9:08:00 AM
2008/2/1, Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@dan42.com>:
> I've just stumbled across the following:
>
> machine1$ ruby -ve 'printf("(%*-s)\n", 10,"hello")'
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-freebsd6]
> (hello )
>
> machine2$ ruby -ve 'printf("(%*-s)\n", 10,"hello")'
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 111) [i386-freebsd6]
> -e:1:in `printf': flag after width (ArgumentError)
> from -e:1
>
> I can fix it by changing the pattern to "%-*s", but is that a bug in
> patchlevel 111 or is it a "bugfix" for a syntax that was never supposed
> to be valid?
AFAIK valid syntax always has been this:
irb(main):002:0> sprintf "%*s", 10, "hello"
=> " hello"
irb(main):003:0> sprintf "%-*s", 10, "hello"
=> "hello "
So, it's a bugfix.
> And if the second case, what is the point of making things
> more restrictive?
I do not understand the question: if it is a bug fix then the new
behavior is the one that was originally intended. Code that employs
other syntax is simply broken.
Cheers
robert
--
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end