sg16-meetings VS papers

Summaries of SG16 virtual meetings are published to https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings. Zach's library was last discussed at the 2023-05-10 SG16 meeting; see https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#may-10th-2023. Please feel free to initiate discussions on the SG16 mailing list (https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16).

The Text and Unicode Study Group did not meet this week but continues to meet virtually at the twice monthly cadence it has maintained for the past five years. To follow the fun or, better, join in, see https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings.

The minutes of discussions are not available in general, but some subgrouos put them on GitHub, e.g. https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings

What's fun is, because everything is decided in papers, we can find out why! https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/884

Accepted paper here: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p20...

> The proposed std::print function improves usability, avoids allocating a temporary std::string object and calling operator<< which performs formatted I/O on text that is already formatted. The number of function calls is reduced to one which, together with std::vformat-like type erasure, results in much smaller binary code (see § 13 Binary code).

Additionally,

> Another problem is formatting of Unicode text:

> std::cout << "Привет, κόσμος!";

> If the source and execution encoding is UTF-8 this will produce the expected output on most GNU/Linux and macOS systems. Unfortunately on Windows it is almost guaranteed to produce mojibake despite the fact that the system is fully capable of printing Unicode

See https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/557

Bringing editions to C++ failed, and I am not aware of anyone trying to tackle the issues https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/631

(I could be wrong though! I follow the committee more than you may guess, but not as much as to think I know everything about what's going on.)

GitHub would not be relevant in this respect because:

* It's owned by a (single) commercial corporation, Microsoft.

* There is censorship both by content and in some respects by country of origin.

* The code is closed.

but otherwise it's an interesting idea.

The C++ standardization committee uses GitHub to track papers submitted to them, see:

https://github.com/cplusplus/papers

There was no non-approval. The facility needs more work, and the authors (and the committee) were focusing on getting print/format done first. I hope that the paper will be worked on again in the future. We will be happy to review it once there is a revision (see github for history)

For more details on what we did at the 2023-06 Varna meeting, the [GitHub issue](https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/328) associated with the paper has a summary.

You subscribe to the Github issue of the proposal: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues