Subject: Re: [SG16-Unicode] New P/R for LWG 3328
From: Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) (bion_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-08 03:00:14
That might be the case, but LWG wanted changes before they were willing to merge it, hence my message.
From: Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:57:31 AM
To: Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <bion_at_[hidden]>; Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>; SG16 <unicode_at_[hidden]>
Subject: RE: New P/R for LWG 3328
I think Jeffs proposed wording adequately resolves the NB comment.
From: unicode-bounces_at_[hidden] <unicode-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS)
Sent: 08 November 2019 08:56
To: Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>; SG16 <unicode_at_[hidden]>
Subject: [SG16-Unicode] New P/R for LWG 3328
Hello Jeff and SG16.
In LWG today there were 4 concerns raised:
1. Historic => historical
2. Missing :: in the u8path reference
3. ISO rules forbid should in notes.
4. The should in new code form is somewhat preachy and we should say why.
To those ends, how about this:
[Note: The example above is representative of a historical use of filesystem::u8path. Passing a std::u8string to paths constructor is preferred for an indication of UTF-8 encoding more consistent with paths handling of other encodings. -- end note.]
SG16 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com