Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!jgk From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Curious Behaviour of "sscanf" Keywords: sscanf, c compilers. Message-ID: <2000@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 20 Jun 88 01:10:13 GMT References: <236@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM> Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 16 In article <236@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM> anderson@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (Joel Anderson) writes: >Sscanf matches the number of arguments but does not continue parsing >the control string (i.e. true even though the closing paren is missing)? > >Perhaps this is correct - is it? `man sscanf' (RTFM) say: |BUGS | The success of literal matches and suppressed assignments is | not directly determinable. So it's certainly documented. You could argue that this isn't `correct', but i'm not sure. What would you have it return? >Joel. --Joe