On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:28 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>
To confirm: did you find a volunteer for tomorrow's call, 10AM Pacific?



> Tom.
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
>