Re: doc string of `format' - FLAGS unexplained

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Chong Yidong wrote:
> I'd like to propose the following change to the doc string of
> `format'.
>
> 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.
>
> Any thoughts?

How nice with a readable description of those formats. But

> !   %<flags><width><precision>character
> ! 
> ! where flags is [+ #]+, width is [0-9]+, and precision is .[0-9]+

  ! where <flags> is [+ #0]+, width is [1-9][0-9]*, and precision is
  .[0-9]+

is perhaps more accurate. `0' is a flag that gives leading 0:s, isn't it?

And perhaps is it more logical to write <flags> then just flags?