Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> If this proves useful, it'll stay in the tree and be part of 7.0 (no MFCs!)
> it people break out in bikesheds about it, it will not.

I'd rather leave the single letter specifiers and modifiers to the 
standards compliant printf and use something like %{foo} as the specifier 
for extensions.

I've re-arranged some of the internals to make this easier to implement, 
and stubbed out the parsing of the %{} formats.  I'm a little unsure what 
sort of errors to throw on extension lookup failure.

...

What are your feelings on implementing things in such a way that the 
compiler could use this same sort of extension plugin to perform type 
checking?