Re: Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used

On 29 January 2013 08:19, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> * The width field is optional, even if the '-' flag is specified. So
> '%-s' is perfectly legal and should be interpreted as '%s'. The
> current implementation treats it as a width of 0, which is wrong.
>

Oh, but of course a width of 0 is the same as no width at all, so the
current code is correct after all. That's what happens if I try to
write emails before I've had my caffeine :-)

I think my other points remain valid though. It would still be neater
to parse the flags separately from the width field, and then all
literal numbers that appear in the format should be positive.

Regards,
Dean