Version franaise
Home About Download Resources Contact us

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
precision not working properly for strings in Printf?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-06-27 (03:48)
From: Quc_Peyrot <chojin@l...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] precision not working properly for strings in Printf?

On Jun 27, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Jonathan Bryant wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:18 PM, Quc Peyrot wrote:
>> It seems that the precision field doesn't work properly with the  
>> "s" type in Printf.printf:
> It does work properly.  It's just not working the way you're  
> expecting it to work.

I was just expecting it to work like the printf from the glibc:

s      If  no  l  modifier  is  present:  The  const char * argument is
	      expected to be a pointer to an array of character type  (pointer
	      to  a string).  Characters from the array are written up to (but
	      not including) a terminating NUL character; if  a  precision  is
	      specified,  no more than the number specified are written.  If a
	      precision is given, no null character need be  present;  if  the
	      precision  is  not specified, or is greater than the size of the
	      array, the array must contain a terminating NUL character.

>> # Printf.printf "%.2s" "qwerty";;
>> qwerty- : unit = ()
>> This should print "qw"
> No it shouldn't.  The width/precision specifier guarantees a  
> _minimum_ length for strings, not an absolute length.  From the  
> docs for Printf:

As said above, this is not how printf is working in the glibc (at  
least on linux and Mac OS X). Any clue why the same convention has  
not been followed?

Best Regards,