On 10/22/19 6:21 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> I believe all changes to https://wg21.link/P1030 path_view requested by
> SG16 have been made. Options:
>
> 1. SG16 from examining the R3 paper gives acclamation that all remaining
> Unicode issues have been tackled by R3, and LEWG can press on with
> design review.
>
> 2. SG16 would like to take another pass at R3 in Belfast, examining each
> API in turn for corner cases, and if the right choice has been made.

Thanks for the update, Niall.

I have P1030R3 on the list of papers to schedule for Belfast [1], but I
haven't finished the schedule yet. We're going to be short on time, but
I plan to make time for this paper. Some things that you could do to help:

1) Have a brief introduction prepared that goes over the changes since
R2 and the affect those changes have had on users (e.g., some details
like those you describe below).

2) Review the polls [2] from our review of R2 and for each determine if
there is new information that should lead us to re-poll those
questions. Of course, discussion may lead us to re-polling those if we
determine that significant new information exists any way.

3) Consider any new polls you might like to take for R3.

Tom.

[1]: http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21belfast/SG16
[2]: http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21cologne2019/SG16P1030R2

>
> The newly rebuilt reference implementation has been in production use
> for about two weeks now, and it seems to work okay. Upgrading previous
> code was quite the pain however, the literal equality comparisons were
> particularly code-breaky when comparisons previously did a unicode
> comparison.
>
> The new approach is much better, efficiency wise, however. It turned out
> that old code was doing really stupid stuff like comparing paths within
> a hot loop :(, and that has now been fixed :)
>
> Niall
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode