C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Agenda for the 2021-06-23 SG16 telecon
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-06-17 10:56:53


SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, June 23rd at 19:30 UTC (timezone
conversion
<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210623T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest>).

The agenda is:

  * P2093R6: Formatted output <https://wg21.link/p2093r6>
      o Finish polling begun at the last telecon.
  * LWG 3565: Handling of encodings in localized formatting of chrono
    types is underspecified <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3565>
      o Discuss and poll the proposed resolution.
  * P2295R4: Support for UTF-8 as a portable source file encoding
    <https://wg21.link/p2295r4>
      o Review updated wording produced through collaboration between
        Corentin, Jens, Hubert, and Peter.
          + https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/04/2353.php
          + https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/06/2429.php

At the last telecon, we discussed addressing LWG 3565 as the first
agenda item for this telecon.  However, I would prefer to finish polling
for P2093R6 first as I expect some of the remaining candidate polls to
be potentially relevant for the LWG issue resolution.

For reference, here are the P2093R6 polls and poll results taken during
the last telecon (I'll get the meeting summary posted soon).  Consensus
so far appears to be rather strong with the exception of poll 3.2.

  * *Poll 1: P2093R6: <format> and <print> facilities should have
    consistent behavior with respect to encoding expectations for the
    format string.*
    Attendees: 8
    No objection to unanimous consent.
  * *Poll 2.1: P2093R6: <format> and <print> facilities should have
    consistent behavior with respect to encoding expectations for the
    output of formatters.*
    <Not polled; per discussion, revisit following later polls>
  * *Poll 2.2: P2093R6: formatters should not be sensitive to whether
    they are being used with a <format> or <print> facility.*
    Attendees: 8
    No objection to unanimous consent.
  * *Poll 3.1: P2093R6: Regardless of format string encoding
    assumptions, <format> facilities may be used to format binary data.*
    Attendees: 8 (1 abstention)
    SF  F  N  A SA
     Â 5  1  1  0  0
    Strong consensus
  * *Poll 3.2: P2093R6: Regardless of format string encoding
    assumptions, <print> facilities may be used to format binary data.*
    Attendees: 8 (1 abstention)
    SF  F  N  A SA
     Â 2  1  3  1  0
    Weak consensus
  * *Poll 4: P2093R6: <print> facilities exhibit undefined behavior when
    an encoding expectation is present and a format string or formatter
    output does not match those expectations.*
    Attendees: 8 (1 abstention)
    SF  F  N  A SA
     Â 2  4  0  0  1
    Strong consensus
  * *Poll 5: P2093R6: <print> facilities exhibit undefined behavior when
    an encoding expectation is present and a format string or formatter
    output does not match those expectations and output is directed to a
    device that has encoding expectations.*
    Attendees: 8 (1 abstention)
    SF  F  N  A SA
     Â 6  0  1  0  0
    Stronger consensus than poll 4.
  * *Poll 6: P2093R6: <print> facility implementors are encouraged to
    provide a run-time means for diagnosing format strings and formatter
    output that is not well-formed according to the expected encoding.*
    Attendees: 8 (1 abstention)
    SF  F  N  A SA
     Â 4  0  2  1  0
    Consensus.

The remaining candidate polls are:

  * Poll 2.1: P2093R6: <format> and <print> facilities should have
    consistent behavior with respect to encoding expectations for the
    output of formatters.
  * Poll 7: P2093R6: <print> facility implementors are encouraged to
    substitute U+FFFD replacement characters following Unicode guidance
    when output is directed to a device and transcoding is necessary.
  * Poll 8: P2093R6: Neither <format> nor <print> facilities require an
    explicit program-controlled error handling mechanism for violations
    of encoding expectations.
  * Poll 9: P2093R6: Use of UTF-8 as the literal encoding is sufficient
    for <format> and <print> facilities to assume that the format string
    and output of all formatters is UTF-8 encoded.
  * Poll 10: P2093R6: Use of a literal encoding other than UTF-8 is
    sufficient for <format> and <print> facilities to assume a
    particular encoding for the format string and output of formatters.
  * Poll 11: P2093R6: Support for implicit encoding conversions will
    only be possible when an encoding assumption is implicitly or
    explicitly present.

Assuming good consensus on those polls, we'll poll forwarding P2093R6 to
LEWG again with direction to revise the paper to align with SG16
feedback.  At a minimum, a revision will be expected to record SG16
direction and rationale.  In order to avoid spending more SG16 telecon
time on this paper, we'll look for a volunteer to review the updated
revision and report back to SG16.

  * Poll X: P02093R6: Direct Victor to revise the paper to reflect SG16
    rationale and guidance, delegate review of a future revision to XXX,
    and forward to LEWG for inclusion in C++23 pending review confirmation.

Tom.



SG16 list run by sg16-owner@lists.isocpp.org