On 05/05/2020 08.34, Jens Maurer via SG16 wrote:
> On 05/05/2020 08.15, Jens Maurer via SG16 wrote:
>> On 05/05/2020 07.58, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>>> P1949R3 <https://wg21.link/p1949r3> presents the following code that, assuming I accurately captured the discussion during the April 22nd SG16 telecon in https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#april-22nd-2020, we intend to make well-formed (it is currently ill-formed because \u0300 doesn't match /identifier/ and is therefore lexed as '\' followed by 'u0300').
>>>
>>>> |#define accent(x)x##\u0300 constexpr int accent(A) = 2; constexpr int gv2 = A\u0300; static_assert(gv2 == 2, "whatever");|
>>
>> (Did I mention I hate HTML e-mails?)
>>
>> The proposed wording does not attempt to make this example well-formed,
>> assuming that a combining character is not in XID_Continue.
>> (Please check me on the latter.)
>
> That's wrong. UAX#31 says XID_Continue is ID_Continue with
> a few (enumerated) exceptions.
> https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/tr31-33.html#NFKC_Modifications

... and ID_Continue includes combining characters.

>> When we preprocess accent(A),
>> we perform A ## \u0300
>> which becomes A\u0300
>> which is not a (single) preprocessing token
>> (because \u0300 is not in XID_Continue, so this is not an identifier,
>> and none of the other kinds in [lex.pptoken] matches)
>
> So, this argument must become "which is lexed as
> an /identifier/ preprocessing token, and then immediately
> rejected because
> "The program is ill-formed if an identifier does not conform
> to the NFC normalization specified in ISO/IEC 10646."
>
> And since UAX#31 actually specifies XID_Continue and
> ID_Continue, not UAX#44, we need to make our reference
> to UAX#31 normative and the reference to UAX#44
> informative (bibliography).
>
> Also, the normative text should refer to UAX#31, not UAX#44.
>
> Jens
>
>
>
>> and we get undefined behavior per [cpp.concat] p3.
>>
>> We decided not to address the undefined behavior case here,
>> because that's SG12 territory.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>>
>>> However, the proposed wording would reject the following case involving multiple combining characters:
>>>
>>>> |#define accent(x)x##\u0300\u0327 constexpr int accent(A) = 2; constexpr int gv2 = A\u0300\u0327; static_assert(gv2 == 2, "whatever");|
>>>
>>> The rejection occurs because the proposed wording <http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21summer2020/SG16/uax31.html> results in each /universal-character-name/ that is not lexed as part of one of the existing /preprocessing-token/ cases being lexed as its own preprocessing token; the attempted concatenation produces two preprocessor tokens (A\u0300 and \u0327). I don't know of a principled reason for such rejection, though it isn't clear to me what characters should be permitted to be munched together. One approach would be to introduce another new /preprocessing-token/ category to match the proposed /identifier-continue/; max munch would still always prefer /identifier/ when such a sequence is preceded by a character in XID_Start. We would still want to retain the proposed new "each /universal-character-name/ ..." category as a way to avoid tearing of /universal-character-name/s that name a character not in XID_Start or XID_Continue.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that this scenario is worth addressing. It strikes me as approximately as valuable as the first example.
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>>
>>
>