On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 9:54 AM Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Tom Honermann wrote:
>
> > I think we *might* be successful in using "execution encoding" to apply
> > to both the compile-time and run-time encodings by extending the term
> with
> > specific qualifiers; e.g., "presumed execution encoding" and
> > "run-time/system/native execution encoding".
>
> This would be implying that there's a single "execution" or "native"
> encoding, whereas there are many.
>
> - encoding used for character literals
>

We are specifically talking about that uniquely and how to refer to that.

Of course such strings will be interpreted with a different encoding to the
one they were writing in at compile time - Even if the standard assumes
compatibility between how a string is layed out in memory and how it will
be interpreted by standard and system provided facilities.

- what the locale has been set to (at compile time, at run time)
> - what file names use, per filesystem, there can be more than one (*)
> - what file contents use
> - what the console/the terminal uses
>
> (*) Here "none" (arbitrary NTBS not interpreted as characters by the FS)
> is
> an option
>

Probably the only portable option even.

>
>