+1

I have had the need to format pointers in the various ways described in the paper on numerous occasions (except for locale considerations, but as an opt-in, I see no issue).

I believe there is an Oxford comma missing in the updates to [format.string.std]p13: "... other than charT and bool, pointer types, or when an integer presentation type is specified" (after "pointer types").

Tom.

On 2/10/2022 6:40 PM, Inbal Levi via SG16 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: 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: 
  • 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