Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 20:23:37 -0700
Hi SG16,
I'd like you to take on CWG issue #1871 <http://wg21.link/cwg1871>:
1871. Non-identifier characters in *ud-suffix*
*Section: *5.13.8 [lex.ext] *Status: *extension *Submitter: *Richard
Smith *Date: *2014-02-17
(From messages 24712
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24712>
through 24714
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24714>,
24716
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24716>,
24717
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24717>,
and 24719
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24719>.)
A *ud-suffix* is defined in 5.13.8 [lex.ext] as an *identifier*. This
prevents plausible user-defined literals for currency symbols, which are
not categorized as identifier characters.
*Rationale (June, 2014):*
CWG felt that a decision on whether to allow this capability or not should
be considered by EWG.
Please let EWG know what you think, given the ongoing TR31 work. EWG will
then discuss your proposal, hopefully adopting it as-is, and forward to CWG.
Thanks,
JF
I'd like you to take on CWG issue #1871 <http://wg21.link/cwg1871>:
1871. Non-identifier characters in *ud-suffix*
*Section: *5.13.8 [lex.ext] *Status: *extension *Submitter: *Richard
Smith *Date: *2014-02-17
(From messages 24712
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24712>
through 24714
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24714>,
24716
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24716>,
24717
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24717>,
and 24719
<http://listarchives.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=core&msg=24719>.)
A *ud-suffix* is defined in 5.13.8 [lex.ext] as an *identifier*. This
prevents plausible user-defined literals for currency symbols, which are
not categorized as identifier characters.
*Rationale (June, 2014):*
CWG felt that a decision on whether to allow this capability or not should
be considered by EWG.
Please let EWG know what you think, given the ongoing TR31 work. EWG will
then discuss your proposal, hopefully adopting it as-is, and forward to CWG.
Thanks,
JF
Received on 2020-04-07 22:26:42