On 4/7/20 11:37 PM, Tom Honermann wrote:
> On 4/7/20 11:23 PM, JF Bastien via SG16 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sounds good. I filed an SG16 issue
> (https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/issues/61) to ensure we follow
> up on this. We'll discuss at an upcoming telecon.
>
SG16 discussed this at our April 22nd, 2020 telecon
<https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#april-22nd-2020>.

The following poll was performed:

Poll: Is there any objection to unanimous consent for recommending
rejection of this proposal?
- No objection to unanimous consent.

So, SG16 consensus is (so far) unanimous to reject this issue. Per our
operating procedures
<https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/blob/master/OperatingProcedures.md>,
objections to the consensus can be raised over the next week (I just
posted notification of the poll today), but I'm not anticipating any. I
advise EWG to proceed with this recommendation at its leisure.

Tom.