On 5/31/20 6:21 PM, Corentin via SG16 wrote:
> Hello
>
> Consider a string literal "e\u00B4" (LATIN SMALL LETTER E, ACUTE ACCENT).
I think you meant "e\u0301" here. U+00B4 is not a combining acute
accent; U+0301 is.
>
> There is some consensus in SG-16 that this should not be normalized in
> phase 1, or in phase 5 if the execution encoding of that
> string literal encode the Unicode character set.
> However, what should happen if the execution character set is Latin 1,
> for example?
>
> ACUTE ACCENT does not have an implementation in latin 1, but the
> grapheme cluster LATIN SMALL LETTER E, ACUTE ACCENT does as LATIN
> SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE has a representation in the latin character set
And I think you mean COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT here (U+0301).
>
> This is currently implementation defined ("e?" in msvc, ill-formed in
> GCC and Clang), but the wording is specific about the conversion
> happening independently for each code point.
>
> I think we have several options:
>
> 1. Status quo
> 2. Making the conversion ill formed as per P1854R0 Conversion to
> execution encoding should not lead to loss of meaning
> https://wg21.link/p1854r
> 3. Allowing an implementation to transform each abstract character to
> another abstract character represented by more of fewer code points
> 4. Forcing an implementation to transform each abstract character to
> another abstract character represented by more of fewer code points.
> 5. Conversion to NFC(K?) before conversion to a non unicode character
> set, but that may maybe introduce further issues and adds burden
> on implementation
>
>
> Option 4 seems hardly implementable in all cases.
> Option 2 and 5 offer the most consistency across implementations
> Option 3, 4, 5 may be a behavior change
>
> I think i have a preference for 3.
>
> What do you think?
>
My answer depends on if you really intended U+00B4 as opposed to U+0301.

Tom.