I tried looking for the C list but that link appears to have
disappeared off the face of the internet as far as I can tell, I even
tried using the original list I had signed up for only to be told by
google the domain no longer exists, would greatly appreciate being
pointed in the right direction, only went with this list because I
couldn't find that list

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 19:27, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:07 PM Bjorn Reese via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/31/23 19:51, Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 18:48, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals
> > > <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Why do we want to improve type-unsafe tools like `printf` when we have
> > > type-safe tools like `std::format`? We don't quite have a scanf
> > > equivalent yet, but it'd be better to work on that.
> > >
> > >
> > > And any changes to printf would have to go through the C committee
> > > (WG14) not the C++ committee.
> >
> > It is possible to build a type-safe extension without the involvement
> > of the C committee:
> >
> > https://github.com/rokudev/rostd/blob/main/doc/printx.adoc
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dg7dMRjyxI
>
> That's just a library. Anybody can build a library and name their
> functions whatever they want.
>
> If you want to call it "std::printf" (which is what this proposal is
> talking about: changes to the function `std::printf`), then it must
> first become part of C because that's where "std::printf" comes from.
>
> We already have a type-safe replacement for `printf`; I see no reason
> to try to change printf when we could give those capabilities to our
> replacement.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals