Thanks everyone, for your valuable feedback!
I agree with Corentin, there's a clear indication that there's support for
exploring the change from the status quo and that we'll need a paper for it.

> Yeah, I'll look into it and update the paper.
Thank you, Victor, please keep us updated so that we'll be able to make
sure to clear a slot in LEWG's time.
Please also notice some feedback suggesting this might be a smaller issue
then considered in real-world code, so I would advise addressing this in
the paper as well.

> Has SG1 discussed this? Should they?
I agree that a brief consideration by SG16, SG1 before it reaches LEWG
might be useful. CCing chairs.

I'll close this mailing list review with "needs revision", feel free to use
this thread to continue providing feedback.

Thanks again,
Best regards,
Inbal Levi

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 23:38, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 23:34, Herring, Davis via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > * To indicate your opinion on whether a change is needed
> > > (reasoning is, of course, welcome):
> > > * If you support the status quo (no change): please response
> > > with "No Change"
> > > * If you think a change is needed (synchronize the output with
> > > the underlying steam): please response "+1"
> >
> > +1 -- defining writing to a stream via std::print as not writing to the
> stream is broken. Obviously flushing the buffer and _then_ writing
> directly is fine.
>
> +1 (and a meta +1 on the above)
>