Re: i18n/l10n summary

[Paul Eggert]

On 06/01/2017 01:17 AM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> - Probably there's a bug lurking because the info[n] ought to be 
> indexed by specification index, not argument index. Something like 
> (format "%1$c %1$d" ?a) will probably do the wrong thing (untested).

Sorry, I'm not following. That call returns "a 97"; isn't that the 
expected result?

> - We should ban mixing explicit and implicit field numbers, like POSIX 
> printf(3) does. The gain from allowing to mix is negligible, and it 
> makes the implementation and the documentation needlessly complex.

Sounds good, and I installed the attached.

The 1st patch fixes a performance regression introduced by calling 
strtoumax. I went whole-hog and removed all calls to strtoumax, since 
they're all performance-significant, plus it makes for one less porting 
issue to worry about.

The 2nd patch fixes the documentation along the lines that you 
suggested. And on further thought, the tradition for Emacs is to 
document supported behavior and not worry about slowing Emacs down to 
check for undocumented usage (aside from preventing crashes), so with 
that in mind the 2nd patch removes the check for %0$ (which never crashes).

0001-Improve-performance-by-avoiding-strtoumax.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-Limit-format-fields-to-more-POSIX-like-spec.patch
Description: Text Data