In case it is helpful, here are the notes I used for discussion of
CWG#1871 in today's EWG telecon.

CWG#1871 in EWG:
- http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#1871
- https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16/issues/61
- https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#april-22nd-2020
- https://wg21.link/p1949r3
- No objection to unanimous consent to reject; 7 attendees.
- Reasons for rejection include:
   - Issue is not well motivated.
   - SG16 is currently working on a proposal, P1949, to refine allowed
identifiers. It isn't clear how non-identifier UDLs would fit into that.
   - A new preprocessing token kind would be required (not for the
literal itself, but for the UDL declaration).
   - Allowing '$' would be problematic:
     - it isn't in the basic source character set.
     - Some compilers allow it in identifiers.
   - Currency symbols are overloaded; '$' doesn't mean USD, so these
symbols are already not uniquely useful.
   - ISO 4217 specifies currency identifiers and they are already used
in finance.
   - Adopting symbols for this purpose would prevent their use for
other, likely more valuable purposes; as operators for example.
   - Anyone wishing to pursue this further should write a paper that
provides a principled specification for which symbols to permit.

Tom.


On 5/6/20 5:30 PM, JF Bastien wrote:
> I can do it first thing in the call.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:52 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]
> <mailto: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]
>> <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.
>>>
>>
>