I can do it first thing in the call.

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:52 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 5/6/20 2:40 PM, JF Bastien wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> 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]> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>