I'm ecstatic it's been taken care of. But I've also learned not to assume
anything is already fixed.
Thanks for the hard work that means I don't have to figure out how to file
an issue.

If necessary, though, we could reuse the mb to char 32 machinery to find
the code points for property look up.

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 20:49 Tom Honermann via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Steve, yes, this inconsistency was deliberate; see N2418
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2418.pdf> (the paper
> that proposed u8 character literals for C2X). The choice was made
> anticipating a char8_t type as then proposed by N2231
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2231.htm>. As Robert
> already noted, the adoption of N2653
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2653.htm> at the last
> WG14 meeting resolves the inconsistency.
>
> Tom.
> On 2/28/22 3:39 PM, Robert Seacord via Liaison wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, we voted this paper
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2653.htm into C23 at the
> last meeting so you probably want to refer to this as it changes things.
>
> Thanks,
> rCs
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:29 PM Steve Downey via Liaison <
> liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Looking at N 2731
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2731.pdf to see how
>> conversion from source encoding to u8 literal is handled, I notice that
>> 6.4.5 String Literals para 6 says "For UTF–8 string literals, the array
>> elements have type char", although in 6.4.4.4 Character Constants para 12
>> it says "A UTF–8 character constant has type unsigned char."
>>
>> Is the inconsistency a bug or deliberate?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liaison mailing list
>> Liaison_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2022/02/1009.php
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing listLiaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2022/02/1010.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Searchable archives: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2022/03/index.php
>