New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
P2093 Formatted output #884
Comments
P2093R1 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
2020-09-29 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Fabio Fracassi Champion: Victor Zverovich Minute Taker: Ben Craig POLL: We prefer
POLL: Add a member function on ostream instead of a
Author's Position: WF Attendance: 35 Outcome: Consensus against. POLL: Remove
Outcome: No strong consensus for change. Author's Position: N Attendance: 35 |
P2093R2 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
P2093R3 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
PollsPoll: We want P2093r2 to revert moving the
Attendance: 17 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: WA Outcome: Keep the paper as written. SummaryThis was only a short discussion at the end of a session. As before we like the direction of the paper. No new issues came up and we affirmed the design decission of the author to put the ostream related overloads into the ostream header. OutcomeNo changes to the paper. Discussion on this paper will continue. |
P2093R4 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
SG16 reviewed P2093R2 in our 2020-12-09 telecon and P2093R3 in our 2021-02-10 telecon. R3 implemented the feedback provided during the review of R2. The following poll was conducted: Forward P2093R3 to LEWG.
Consensus? Yes Sustained opposition exists regarding progressing this paper without exposing low level interfaces to 1) detect whether output is directed to a console/terminal, 2) write directly to a console/terminal. The author has agreed to propose such facilities in a separate paper. Concerns regarding encoding and how support for additional character types can be incorporated remain, but these concerns were not deemed sufficient to preclude progress on this paper. Participants with such concerns are encouraged to follow up in a separate paper. Removing the SG16 label. |
@tahonermann, there is some unrelated text in the poll statement above ("D1885R2: We want to support non-IANA registered encodings provided by the implementation"). |
Oops, thank you @vitaut, fixed! |
@brycelelbach, I think LEWG related tags may not be correctly set for this paper. I suspect this should have the "ready-for-library-evolution-meeting-review" tag. |
P2093R5 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
2021-04-06 Library Evolution TeleconP2093R5: Formatted output 2021-04-06 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Poll: Block P2093 until we have a proposal for a lower level facility that can query tty/console and preform direct output to the console
Attendance: 26 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: SA Outcome: Consensus Against POLL: We want
Attendance: 24 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: Against both of the favored options. Outcome: Both SummaryWe discussed several questions that were posed to us by SG16 (Unicode). We were able to make progress on several technical questions. The discussion about transcoding requirements and consequences however needs more information to progress. OutcomeWe decided not to block the paper to wait for a lower level facility to interact with consoles/terminals. We discussed naming and header placement as guidance. The paper has been sent back to SG16 (Unicode) for clarification. The issues that need to be decided for this Paper are in SG16's expert domain. Library Evolution needs more information about the design space. |
P2093R9 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
We revisited P2093R8 during our SG16 call on September 8th, 2021. We took the following polls during our discussion:
Removing SG16 label. |
P2093R10 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
2021-11-29 Library Evolution TeleconP2093R10: Formatted Output 2021-11-29 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Champion: Victor Zverovich Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start: 2021-11-29 11:09 Pacific Does this proposal have:
Open Questions:
POLL: Modify P2093R10 (Formatted Output) by updating the wording of the
Attendance: 21 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: SF Outcome: Strong consensus in favor. End: 11:55 SummaryWe discussed P2098 (formatted output), which we've seen a few times in the past. The paper has been iterating in the Text and Unicode study group, which recently approved it and sent it back to Library Evolution. There have not been many significant revisions to the library API since the last time Library Evolution reviewed it. We did identify some mismatches between design intent and wording during our review, but these were all minor matters with a clear resolution. OutcomeModify P2093R10 (Formatted Output) by updating the wording of the |
P2093R11 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
2021-12 Library Evolution Electronic Poll OutcomesPOLL: Send [P2093R11] (Formatted Output) to Library Working Group for C++23, classified as an addition ([P0592R4] bucket 3 item).
Consensus in favor, forwarded to LWG |
P2093R12 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
P2093R13 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
LWG did a final review on 2022-03-25 and approved for c++23 https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2022/P2093-20220325 poll: include P2093r14 into C++23?
|
P2093R14 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich) |
P2093R0 Formatted output (Victor Zverovich)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: