On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 4:02 PM Victor Zverovich <victor.zverovich_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> As an option we could remove the more "controversial" locale part. '0' and
> 'P' seem OK and there were some requests for the former.
>

Yes, please!


>
> BTW is there an implementation?
>
> - Victor
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 3:29 PM Victor Zverovich <
> victor.zverovich_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that I *like* the locale part. I agree that it's a bit
>> hacky but I didn't feel strongly enough to object to the whole paper, just
>> called it out.
>>
>> - Victor
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 2:28 PM Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> I now officially can't tell when Victor will like a <format> addition or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Allowing locale-dependent printing of pointers in order to get a more
>>> readable representation seems a hack to me. If the user goal is a
>>> more readable pointer representation, we should be providing a direct
>>> way to obtain it, not something that abuses the localization mechanism
>>> to achieve it indirectly.
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Lib-Ext <lib-ext-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Victor
>>> > Zverovich via Lib-Ext
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > (Localized formatting of pointers is slightly unorthodox but I see the
>>> value for
>>> > readability.)
>>> >
>>> > Thanks, Mark, for writing this paper.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Victor
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:41 PM Inbal Levi via Lib-Ext <lib-
>>> > ext_at_[hidden] <mailto:lib-ext_at_[hidden]> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hello LEWG (CCing SG16),
>>> > With the design phase of C++23 behind us, we will continue to
>>> process
>>> > issues and minor changes targeting C++23. The majority of them will
>>> target
>>> > electronic poll directly (as is the following paper)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > P2510R0 <https://wg21.link/P2510R0> : Formatting pointers
>>> >
>>> > By: Mark de Wever
>>> >
>>> > ***
>>> >
>>> > From the Abstract:
>>> > The number of formatting options for pointer types is limited
>>> when
>>> > compared to integer types. Since the formatting options are already
>>> > implemented for integer types, some of these restrictions seem
>>> unnecessary
>>> > and inconsistent. This paper aims to make formatting pointer types more
>>> > useful, reducing the need for users to write their own formatters or
>>> casting a
>>> > pointer type to an integer type.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Some meta data:
>>> >
>>> > * The paper mentions two issues:
>>> >
>>> > * LWG3612 <
>>> https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3612>
>>> > (voted into WD in latest plenary P2531R0
>>> > <https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21virtual2022-02/StrawPolls/p2531r0.html>
>>> )
>>> >
>>> > * LWG3644 <
>>> https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3644>
>>> > (LWG's priority 2 - important bug)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > * The paper contains a Tony-table. (Section 2)
>>> > * The paper contains wording, as well as updates
>>> > `__cpp_lib_format`. (Section 4)
>>> > * Please vote with +1 if you support passing the paper to
>>> electronic
>>> > poll.
>>> > (assuming remarks which comes up in the thread will be
>>> > addressed / implemented)
>>> >
>>> > ***
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Weekly reviews improve the readability of the standard!
>>> > By asking questions and sending remarks you indicate to the
>>> authors
>>> > which parts of the proposal are not clear, and by doing so, reduce the
>>> chances
>>> > of ambiguity in the final draft of the standard.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your time,
>>> > Inbal Levi
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Lib-Ext mailing list
>>> > Lib-Ext_at_[hidden] <mailto:Lib-Ext_at_[hidden]>
>>> > Subscription:
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib-ext
>>> > Link to this post:
>>> http://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2022/02/22483.php
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>