On 5/5/20 1:25 AM, JF Bastien wrote:
> Thanks! Can someone from SG16 represent this position at Thursday’s
> EWG telecon (10–11:30 Pacific)?

Yes. I'm under time pressure this week, so I'll try to find a volunteer
to do so, but if I'm unable to find one, I'll join the call.

Tom.

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