Re: [v][sf]printf additions (#, E, g, G)

Hello Matt, sounds good then, keep going. best regards marcus Friday, July 21, 2006, 10:08:19 AM, you wrote: > Hi Marcus, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marcus Boerger" > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:21 PM > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [v][sf]printf additions (#, E, g, G) >> Hello Matt, >> >> Thursday, July 20, 2006, 2:20:46 PM, you wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > I've wished there was a *printf() float specifier that wouldn't include >> > trailing zeros/point, as simply converting to string (echo, %s, etc.) > can >> > result in scientific notation, which I *don't* want (%g in >> > convert_to_string()). The only other way that would result in what I > want >> > is number_format() with my "no-extra-zeros option" patch. ;-) So I was >> > originally looking for how to NOT pad %f to the specified precision, > then I >> > thought why not add more of the stuff from C? (And I see it's marked > "not >> > done" in formatted_print.c.) >> >> > Can/should I go ahead and add support for the # flag/specifier, g/G, and > E >> > (the missing compliment to e)? Make everything work like C, except # > used >> > with f/F, which would mean "remove trailing 0's/point" -- as C's > behavior >> > with # and f (add point even when precision=0?) can be done in PHP. (I >> > assume C's is for when precision is specified with * + parameter?) >> >> Having more conversion specifiers here won't hurt. If it can be done >> in a way compatible to other languages especially like C it should be >> done in that way. If PHP has already closed the way by choosing opposite >> defaults the opposite should everntually also work. > Sorry, not sure what you mean in the last sentence as far as the additions > I'm asking about. I agree about compatibility with C's specifiers, but > PHP's *printf() has things that C's doesn't (%b; alternate padding > specifier) and vice versa (PHP's doesn't support "*" width/precision -- nor > does it need to; also no %n). That's why I thought it would be OK to let # > with f/F mean no trailing 0's. > Other than that, g/G would, of course, be new. Unless it's not needed if 1) > my "alternate form" %f idea is added, or 2) its precision would confuse > users since it means "number of significant digits" with g/G, rather than > decimal places. > # with e/E would include the decimal point even if precision=0 > # with g/G *wouldn't* strip trailing 0's > # with o would include "0" prefix with non-zero result > # with x/X would include "0x"/"0X" prefix with non-zero result > All like C AFAIK, again except %#.3f, for example, wouldn't have trailing > zeros/point. As you can probably tell, I don't like extra 0's unless > there's a *need* to always have the same width (same idea with > number_format()). :-) I'm sure other PHP users feel the same way and would > like this alternate %f form, even if no other language has it! >> Best regards, >> Marcus > Thanks for the reply, > Matt Best regards, Marcus