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