bug#32252: [PATCH] %o and %x now format signed numbers

[Paul Eggert]

> Why breaking longstanding behavior instead of introducing this with a
> different format specifier.  Like %a.

Although it is indeed an incompatible change, I surveyed the existing 
Emacs source code and couldn't find anything that the change would 
break. Almost all uses of %x, %X, and %o were with nonnegative integers 
where the behavior would not change. In the few places I found where the 
integers could be negative, the resulting strings were things like 
nonces where the change didn't break anything. Of course I could have 
missed some uses, and there are uses outside of Emacs source code; 
still, it seems that this change would break very little user code (and 
the rare users who might run into a problem have a simple workaround).

%a has quite a different meaning in C11, so we'd need to use some other 
letter (or set of letters, if we want something for %x, %X, %o) if we 
went that route. This seems like overkill for such a small change to 
functionality that hardly ever matters; plus, %x, %X and %o would 
continue to have problematic machine-dependent semantics and would not 
be sensibly extensible to bignums.