Re: 2.29 freeze update: Last fortnight

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>]

15.01.2019 18:49 Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 1/15/19 9:16 AM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
>  > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00239.html
> 
> I took a look at those. Some comments:

Thank you, Paul.

Tamuki Shoichi, please prepare a new version with these remarks
applied.

> [...]
>  >  For %Ey conversion specifier, the default action is now
>  >  to pad the number with zero to keep minimum 2 digits, similar to %y.
>  >+ Also, the optional flag (either _ or -) can be used for %EY, so that
>  >+ the internal %Ey is interpreted as if decorated with the appropriate
>  >+ flag.
> 
> Change to:
> 
> For the %Ey conversion specifier, the default action is now to zero-pad 
> the number to two digits, like %y.  Also, the optional flag (either _ or 
> -) now affects the formatted year, like %EY.

Shouldn't the flags be quoted, like "_" and "-"?  Also, it seems to me that
a line starting with a plain minus sign does not look good.

>  > static size_t __strftime_internal (CHAR_T *, size_t, const CHAR_T *,
>  >-                   const struct tm *, bool *
>  >+                   const struct tm *, int *, bool *
>  >                    ut_argument_spec
>  >                    LOCALE_PARAM) __THROW;
> 
> I also am puzzled as to why the new argument is int * rather than plain 
> int. Why not make it plain int and simplify the rest of the code 
> accordingly?

I guess this is a kind of optimization: if yr_spec is calculated in the
first pass (calculating the width of the output) then there is no need
to calculate it on the second pass.  But I am not sure we want to
sacrifice the simplicity and nice design of the code.

Regards,

Rafal