GNU bug report logs - #24812
25.1; Missing (binary) radix format directive

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 24812 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.1; Missing (binary) radix format directive
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:24:04 -0600

Emacs' `format' has %o, %x, and %d, but it's missing both the ~r and ~b
radix directives from Common Lisp's `format'.

I can understand leaving out ~r, but I think ~b is worth adding to
Emacs' `format'.

CL example:
(format nil "~b" 5) => "101"

Requested:
(format "%b" 5) => "101"

Message #8 received at 24812 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: 24812 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 25.1; Missing (binary) radix format directive
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 13:34:02 -0600

Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Emacs' `format' has %o, %x, and %d, but it's missing both the ~r and ~b
> radix directives from Common Lisp's `format'.
>
> I can understand leaving out ~r, but I think ~b is worth adding to
> Emacs' `format'.
>
> CL example:
> (format nil "~b" 5) => "101"
>
> Requested:
> (format "%b" 5) => "101"

I noticed that while string_to_number supports an arbitrary base,
number_to_string doesn't.

If number_to_string was symmetric in this aspect, then ~b and ~r should
be straightforward to implement, right?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.