-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
P2286 Formatting Ranges #977
Comments
P2286R1 Formatting Ranges (Barry Revzin) |
Attaching a summary of the reviews (of R1: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2286r1.html)
Action Item: There's a lot of discussion regarding the integration with fmt, I suggest this paper will be scheduled for a Telecon. |
2021-07-20 Library Evolution TeleconD2286R2: Formatting Ranges 2021-07-20 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Inbal Levi Champion: Barry Revzin Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start Discussion: 2021-07-20 10:10 Pacific End Discussion: 2021-07-20 11:05 Pacific SummaryDuring the discussion, three major topics came up:
PollsWe took the following polls: POLL: Investigate a change for all map-like associative containers format in D2286R2 into: std::map<std::string, char> m = {{"hello", 'h'}, {"world", 'w'}};
Would be printed as:
{“hello”: ‘h’, “world”: ‘w’}
Attendance: 18 # of Authors: 1 Author's Position: N Outcome: Weak consensus in favor POLL: Forward next revision of D2286R2 (with the suggested changes below) to LEWG’s mailing list, and then forward to electronic polling, assuming good feedback from the mailing list. Suggested changes:
Attendance: 18 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: SF Outcome: Consensus in favor SA: I can’t forward something that is not finalized OutcomeThe author (in cooperation with the author of fmt) will post a question regarding the investigation of std::format to take arguments by forwarding reference instead of reference to const in LEWG's mailing. If no strong objection will be made, the new revision (P2286R2) will be forwarded to electronic polling. |
P2286R2 Formatting Ranges (Barry Revzin) |
2021-08-31 Library Evolution TeleconD2286R3: Formatting Ranges 2021-08-31 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Inbal Levi Champion: Barry Revzin Minute Taker: Ben Craig SummaryThe paper generally got good support. Few remarks:
POLL: We like the debug formatting solution presented in D2286R3 (Formatting Ranges).
Attendance: 19 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: WF Outcome: Consensus in favor WA: Covering filesystem path and alternative for format_as_map mentioned in the paper. Discuss quoted strings. Addressing those will change my vote. POLL: We want
Attendance: 19 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: N Outcome: Consensus in favor OutcomeThe author will address the issues brought up, including with the "debug" facility, and present the next revision to LEWG when available. |
2022-01-18 Library Evolution TeleconP2286R5: Formatting Ranges 2022-01-18 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Champion: Barry Revzin Minute Taker: Inbal Levi Start: 2022-01-18 11:20 Eastern Does this proposal have:
Should specializations of Is the intent that you can pass a POLL: Standard specializations of
Attendance: 24 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: N Outcome: No consensus. POLL: Modify P2286R5 (Formatting Ranges) as described below and then send the revised paper to LWG for C++23 classified as an addition (priority B3), to be confirmed with a Library Evolution electronic poll.
Attendance: 22 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: 1xSF Outcome: Unanimous consensus in favor. Submit the slides as a P document. End: 12:09 OutcomeModify P2286R5 (Formatting Ranges) as described below and then send the revised paper to LWG for C++23 classified as an addition (priority B3), to be confirmed with a Library Evolution electronic poll.
|
SG16 discussed P2286R6 during its January 26th, 2022 telecon. The focus of the discussion was to review wording with the goal of identifying new concerns. No new concerns were identified and no new polls were taken. Wording feedback and suggestions were sent to the author. The design and wording remains under specified for non-Unicode scenarios as noted in the meeting summary linked above. For that reason, I'm retaining the SG16 label pending a new revision. I anticipate that additional review or implementation experience will be needed to better inform behavior for non-Unicode scenarios. |
I added the |
2022-01 Library Evolution Electronic Poll OutcomesSend [P2286R6] (Formatting Ranges) to Library Working Group for C++23, classified as an addition ([P0592R4] bucket 3 item)
Consensus in favor. |
LWG reviewed and approved wording on 2022-04-22 for c++23 with recheck after SG16 tweaks wording for non-unicode implementations. https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2022/P2286-20220422 poll: put P2286r7 into C++23?
|
SG16 will review updates and confirm direction during its 2022-04-27 telecon. |
P2286R7 Formatting Ranges (Barry Revzin) |
SG16 reviewed the current draft of P2286R7 during its 2022-04-27 telecon. @JeffGarland, we are still working through some wording updates, but intend to finalize those by/during our 2022-05-11 telecon next week. |
SG16 reviewed a draft of P2286R8 during its 2022-05-11 telecon. This draft addresses the concerns SG16 previously had with respect to non-Unicode scenarios being under specified. All concerns previously raised by SG16 have now been addressed. The following poll was taken:
Removing the SG16 label; this paper is now fully in LWG's capable hands. |
LWG re-reviewed on 2022-05-13 and asked for one small change from a Note to Recommended Practice. The update was reviewed live in the meeting and LWG re-affirmed support for C++23. https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2022/P2286-20220513 poll: put p2286r8 into C++23
|
P2286R8 Formatting Ranges (Barry Revzin) |
This has been applied. |
P2286R0 Formatting Ranges (Barry Revzin)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: