https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7054
--- Comment #12 from Marco Leise <[email protected]> --- (In reply to hsteoh from comment #10) > Even if we concede that modern terminals ought to be Unicode-aware (if not > fully supporting Unicode), there is still the slippery slope of how to print > bidirectional text, vertical text, scripts that require glyph mutation, > etc.. Where does one draw the line as to what writefln ought/ought not > handle? I tend to think like Steward. If I was using a script other than Latin, Cyrillic and similarly simple scripts I would most likely expect writefln's output on a terminal to look like when I print a text file of the same script to the terminal. Mixing vertical and horizontal text on a terminal is painfully hard and my expectation is that there is at most an option to render either horizontally or vertically (transposed). In that case "minimal width" would become "minimal height" and we are out of trouble. What exactly do you mean by glyph mutation? In most cases it is probably a task for the text layout engine the terminal uses. In other cases the user of writefln should be aware of how their script will display on a terminal and prepare their text accordingly before printing. There is no simple way to make plurals work in all languages either: http://localization-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/l10n/pluralforms.html Is that comparable to what you had in mind? --
