Re: doc string of `format' - FLAGS unexplained

[Chong Yidong]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> In particular, the statement "flags is [-+ #0]+" is misleading; it
>>>> should be [+ #]+, since the - and 0 characters are actually used to
>>>> identify the width specifier instead.
>>>
>>> This is wrong.  '-' and '0' are real flags that can be freely mixed with
>>> other flags, eg. "%0#10d" is valid and the same as "%#010d".  They are
>>> never considered part of the width.
>>
>> The question is, do we regard this as an undocumented side-effect of
>> the implementation?
>
> It works the same as in C, which is widely understood.  Gratuitous
> differences only confuse people.

True enough.  I've checked in a corrected docstring that treats - and
0 as flags.