As the paper mentioned, I brought this up during the LWG review, so it should be unsurprising that I think this should be synchronized at least for ostreams.

In one of our codebases, where formatting started with iostreams and gradually shifted to {fmt}, there are lots of code of the form:

struct A {
    int a; int b;
    friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, A const& a) {
        fmt::print(os, "{{a={}, b={}}}", a.a, a.b);
        return os;

This seems like a perfectly valid way to implement operator<< to me - except that it doesn't work if fmt::print (and now std::print) can sometimes bypass things in os's buffer. With iostreams in particular, << naturally encourages writing partial lines:

A a{2, 4};
std::cout << "A is " << a << '\n'; // might print "{a=2, b=4}A is "

And having this only happen when writing to a terminal means that it's going to be hard to catch in tests - normally those tests would format something into a buffer and compare with the expected output, which won't engage the reordering case.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:11 PM Inbal Levi via Lib-Ext <> wrote:
* Correction to the title - paper is P2539

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 20:09, Inbal Levi <> wrote:
Hello all,
Today we have a paper in a bit of a different format (😉) - 
this is an Info paper, which the fmt library author wrote to notify LEWG of the current behaviour.
Currently there's no action suggested in the paper, but we would like the author to get an indication on the amount of support for the status quo, as well as whether a change is needed.

P2539R0: Should the output of std::print to a terminal be synchronized with the underlying stream? (
by: Victor Zverovich

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] "Formatted output" Tim Song suggested that synchronizing std::print with the underlying stream may be beneficial for gradual adoption. 

Some meta data:
  • Bottom Line: 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 think a change is needed (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
Lib-Ext mailing list
Link to this post: