The intent of the wording is to say that implementors do *not* need to be aware of terminals or codecvt facets. Without this, the wording could be read that implementations must implement magic to make the character display correctly.

Please read the wording again. Note that it says that, if those conditions are true, then the result is unspecified.

Tom.

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Then I would just say associated execution encoding with charT
>
> Extremely uncomfortable with involving stream, console or anything else not known at compile time
>
>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 04:51, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/19 8:30 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>> You can comment the LWG issue (if you want) by emailing said comment to lwgchair_at_[hidden], specifying which issue you wish to comment and supplying the comment.
>>>
>>> Howard
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Corentin via Lib-Ext <lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Not sure how to do that proceduraly but here is some alternative wording.
>>>> The "runtime" locale-tied encoding is *assumed to be* a super set of the execution encoding - to the extent the standard doesn't distinguish between the two
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If Period::type is micro, but the <ins>abstract</ins> character <ins>µ , which has the universal character name </ins> U+00B5 cannot be represented in the <ins>execution</ins> encoding <del>used for</del><ins> associated with the character type </ins> charT, the unit suffix "us" is used instead of "µs".
>>
>> Howard and I discussed the wording I proposed today and we're now on the same page with regard to the intent.
>>
>> With regard to Corentin's suggested wording above, "abstract character" and "execution encoding" are not current terms in the standard (well, the former is inherited from our reference to the Unicode standard but is otherwise unused at present). P1859R0 does intend to standardize new terminology, but we don't yet have consensus for what the new terms should be named. I think we should avoid using candidate names until we have such consensus.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 15:42, Tom Honermann via Lib-Ext <lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>> A new LWG issue was filed for this question today:
>>>>>> - https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3314
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This issue concerns the ostream inserters added for std::chrono::duration in C++20 and what the intended behavior is for a duration when period::type is micro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [time.duration.io]p4 states:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Period​::​type is micro, but the character U+00B5 cannot be represented in the encoding used for charT, the unit suffix "us" is used instead of "μs".
>>>>>>
>>>>> The question is with regard to which one of the encodings used for charT is referred to here; the compile-time execution character set or the run-time locale dependent native character set?
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed resolution specifies that the compile-time execution character set is the intended one. My expectation is that this aligns with existing implementations, but I haven't checked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lib-Ext mailing list
>>>> Lib-Ext_at_[hidden]
>>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib-ext
>>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2019/11/13309.php
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lib-Ext mailing list
>>>> Lib-Ext_at_[hidden]
>>>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib-ext
>>>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2019/11/13325.php
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SG16 Unicode mailing list
>>> Unicode_at_[hidden]
>>> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>>