SG16 discussed this issue during our telecon held January 8th, 2020. A
meeting summary is available at:

  * https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#january-8th-2020

We did not poll any conclusions (we don't typically poll in telecons).
Some items we discussed include:

  * Whether an exact type match should be required. No one voiced
    opposition to such a requirement.
  * Whether the exact type match should result in a hard-error or be
    SFINAE'd away. No preferences were expressed other than to leave
    this up to LWG.
  * There was no support expressed for any kind of implicit transcoding
    for the wchar_t* -> char* case; consensus appears to favor an error.

Tom.

On 12/16/19 11:28 AM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> SG16 has a new mailing list. Copying the new one and removing the old
> one...
>
> Tom.
>
> On 11/25/19 3:54 PM, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) via Lib wrote:
>>
>> +Unicode.
>>
>> P3.
>>
>> It should be noted that http://eel.is/c++draft/re.regex#1
>> <http://eel.is/c++draft/re.regex#1> strongly indicates that all
>> elements in use are supposed to be **exactly** CharT, not only
>> convertible to CharT, and I would prefer to see any resolution here
>> keep such a requirement. (Otherwise it’s too easy to pass wchar_t* to
>> a char* regex expecting something reasonable to happen)
>>
>> Billy3
>>
>> *From:* Lib <lib-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Marshall
>> Clow via Lib
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2019 9:25 AM
>> *To:* lib_at_[hidden]
>> *Cc:* Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [isocpp-lib] Issue 3341: basic_regex range
>> constructor: Missing requirements for iterator types
>>
>> It's Monday, so it must be bug prioritization time!
>> Thanks to everyone who has participated.
>>
>> https://wg21.link/LWG3341
>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwg21.link%2FLWG3341&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C797e29531eed488a8d9f08d771cc8090%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637102995459303425&sdata=Aw97pJ0rEnU79HnQag6kbrRh91mYm3DVBC8s%2BNg47Cw%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> Priority levels:
>> P0 - Has a proposed resolution and that resolution is clearly
>> correct. Requires unanimity among the people doing prioritization.
>> Move the issue to "Tentatively Ready" or "Ready" (whichever is
>> appropriate for the group doing the review); we don't want to spend
>> any more time discussing this issue. [Shortened: Approve, and move on.]
>> P1 - Showstopper bug; don't ship a standard w/o resolving this.
>> P2 - Important bug.
>> P3 - Normal bug.
>> P4 - Less important bug.
>>
>> The most common priority should be P3.
>>
>> Please add your comments to this thread.
>>
>> -- Marshall
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lib mailing list
>> Lib_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription:https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib
>> Link to this post:http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2019/11/14509.php
>
>
>