Thanks! Can someone from SG16 represent this position at Thursday’s EWG
telecon (10–11:30 Pacific)?


On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:00 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>