From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:22:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-branch: add --track and --no-track options
Message-ID: <7v1wk2srx0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <45ED1CB9.7060508@lu.unisi.ch>

Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@lu.unisi.ch> writes:

> No, it's not.  But it's helped a lot by using sscanf itself,
> and "%n" is the only way I know to reliably test the return
> code of sscanf and, in the process, save one strchr and one
> strlen.

Ok, let's see if that is true in the next round, then.  I do not
have much against sscanf(%n) as long as its return value is not
depended upon (the portability issue as you mentioned).