A few questions:

Why is it called "Mutable Proposal"?
Why dedicated specifiers %K, %k, %L instead of something like %3S, %6S, and
%9S, respectively? I think those are available, and certainly much easier
to remember. Also opens up the door for the equivalent %3T, %6T, and %9T.

Also, please add, at the top, examples of what these new specifiers do,
especially in contrast to existing specifiers. There aren't any examples
right now, and I had to skip to the wording to understand the proposal. I
think it's also worth adding to your table on page 3 what a few other
languages do in this space (notably Python and Rust).

The table of used specifiers was quite helpful, even though I find your use
of A, B, C, D to describe your added specifiers (which are all letters, but
not those letters, but the letters you are using to represent the letters
you're adding are all themselves valid specifiers) a little confusing.

Barry


On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 5:30 PM Simon Hill via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> While considering my earlier proposal, other commonly-used-elsewhere
> format specifiers felt relevant. As they are all highly related, I decided
> to combine them into one draft proposal because I'm guessing it's probably
> more efficient.
> I incorporated a few of the suggestions I got here into this proposal.
> Still just a draft, I read through it a few times but it might still have
> a typo or two that I missed.
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>