On 5/6/20 2:40 PM, JF Bastien wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:28 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
> <mailto: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?

No takers, so I'll join the call. If you can schedule this early during
the telecon, I would appreciate it (I'm trying to wrap up a new release
at work this week, so short on time).

Tom.

>
> 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.
>>
>