%i or %d to print integer in C using printf()?

I am just learning C and I have a little knowledge of Objective-C due to dabbling in iOS development, however, in Objective-C I was using `NSLog(@"%i", x);` to print the variable _x_ to the console however I have been reading a few C tutorials and they are saying to use `%d` instead of `%i`.

`printf("%d", x);`
and `printf("%i", x);` both print _x_ to the console correctly.

These both seem to get me to the same place so I am asking the experienced developers which is preferred? Is one more semantically correct or is _right_?

%d seems to be the norm for printing integers, I never figured out why, they behave identically.

They are completely equivalent when used with `printf()`. Personally, I prefer `%d`, it's used more often (should I say "it's the idiomatic conversion specifier for `int`"?).

(One difference between `%i` and `%d` is that when used with `scanf()`, then `%d` always expects a decimal integer, whereas `%i` recognizes the `0` and `0x` prefixes as octal and hexadecimal, but no sane programmer uses `scanf()` anyway so this should not be a concern.)

both `%d` and `%i` can be used to print an integer

%d stands for "decimal", and %i for "integer." You can use %x to print in hexadecimal, and %o to print in octal.

You can use %i as a synonym for %d, if you prefer to indicate "integer" instead of "decimal."

On input, using scanf(), you can use use both %i and %d as well. %i means parse it as an integer in any base (octal, hexadecimal, or decimal, as indicated by a 0 or 0x prefix), while %d means parse it as a decimal integer.

check here for more explanation

**https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13409014/why-does-d-stand-for-integer**

`d` and `i` conversion specifiers behave the same with `fprintf` but behave differently for `fscanf`.

As some other wrote in their answer, the idiomatic way to print an `int` is using `d` conversion specifier.

Regarding `i` specifier and `fprintf`, C99 Rationale says that:

>The %i conversion specifier was added in C89 for programmer convenience to provide
symmetry with fscanf’s %i conversion specifier, even though it has exactly the same meaning
as the %d conversion specifier when used with fprintf.

As others said, they produce identical output on printf, but behave differently on scanf. I would prefer `%d` over `%i` for this reason. A number that is printed with `%d` can be read in with `%d` and you will get the same number. That is not always true with `%i`, if you ever choose to use zero padding. Because it is common to copy printf format strings into scanf format strings, I would avoid `%i`, since it could give you a surprising bug introduction:

I write `fprintf("%i ...", ...);`

You copy and write `fscanf(%i ...", ...);`

I decide I want to align columns more nicely and make alphabetization behave the same as sorting: `fprintf("%03i ...", ...);` (or `%04d`)

Now when you read my numbers, anything between 10 and 99 is interpreted in octal. Oops.

If you want decimal formatting, just say so.