Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <160101201724.ZM1844@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 20:17:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAKc7PVDsXof4TFRvtY15qThTEPqLz6NiSeL6dsKxqGXyK2aVeg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In reply to Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@gmail.com>
        "Re: Printf builtin missing v flag support" (Jan  1, 11:12pm)
References: <068ca8f5-315b-444c-b281-5f183e1daa8c@email.android.com> 
	<151231104858.ZM24513@torch.brasslantern.com> 
	<CAKc7PVCXaicToQHdgaqnOmoqHjqQLxUXQSUrBx=fjs9JH2USKQ@mail.gmail.com> 
	<160101135224.ZM10746@torch.brasslantern.com> 
	<CAKc7PVDsXof4TFRvtY15qThTEPqLz6NiSeL6dsKxqGXyK2aVeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: Printf builtin missing v flag support
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jan 1, 11:12pm, Sebastian Gniazdowski wrote:
} Subject: Re: Printf builtin missing v flag support
}
} On 1 January 2016 at 22:52, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
} >
} > To make it work with -x, -X, -C, etc. would require moving the memstream
} > code to the top of the function, plus some related fiddling around later.
} 
} Could you implement that? The move of memstream code seems like a
} cleanup, print would have full control of whether do memstream or not.

I looked at it, but it's more messy than I thought, because the printf
branch keeps a running count of the number of bytes printed, which is
then needed for handling the result.  No sub-part of the print branch
maintains that byte count, so a lot of fiddly little changes are needed.

Also the print branch does some extra work to detect write errors on
redirection -- which it looks like might actually be buggy in the
-z/-s case when HAVE_OPEN_MEMSTREAM is not defined, and which have to
be rewritten for the -v case -- so this is not going to happen quickly.