Noted :)

Let's* reopen this review with the new revision, R1*, proposing
wording for* synchronizing std::print with
the underlying stream:*

P2539R1: Should the output of std::print to a terminal be synchronized with
the underlying stream? (wg21.link/P2539 <http://wg21.link/P2539r1>)
by: Victor Zverovich

*Please vote +1 for supporting moving this change forward for C++23.*

***

*From the Discussion:*
To prevent mojibake std::print may use a native Unicode API when writing to
a terminal bypassing the stream buffer. During the review of [P2093]
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2539r0.html#biblio-p2093>
"Formatted
output" Tim Song suggested that synchronizing std::print with the
underlying stream may be beneficial for gradual adoption.

*Some meta data:*

   - *Bottom Line: *Although the issue appears to be mostly theoretical, it
   might still be beneficial to clarify in the standard that synchronization
   is desired. Neither {fmt} ([FMT]) nor Rust ([RUST-STDIO]) do such
   synchronization in their implementations of print.
   - 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 support making the change *for C++23* (synchronize the
      output with the underlying steam): please response* "+1"*

***

*Weekly reviews improve quality!*
Running weekly reviews allows more iterations on each proposal, which
hopefully, in turn, will result in more accurate and subtle fixes.

Thank you for taking the time to review the proposal,
and have a great week!

Inbal Levi

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 18:42, Barry Revzin <barry.revzin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:38 AM Corentin via Lib-Ext <
> lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>> Victor kindly provided a new revision with wording to flush the
>> underlying stream upon writing
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2539r1.html
>>
>> Please provide feedback on the paper/wording.
>> Given the support for the direction last time, if we don't hear
>> objections or new information, we will start a motion to send this paper to
>> electronic polling.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Have a great day,
>>
>> Corentin.
>>
>
> Preemptive +1 to electronic polling.
>
> Barry
>