On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 21:02, Hubert Tong via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:51 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/20 1:28 PM, Hubert Tong wrote:
>>
>>
>> This may be useful for an intermediate stage of the process of updating
>> the wording:
>>
>> Basic source character set:
>> set of abstract characters used for the description of source code for
>> the purposes of this document
>>
>> I think the "basic source character set" fails to be a "character set". I
>> believe the elements of a character set are mappings of values to abstract
>> characters.
>>
>> I agree with your characterization of a "character set". But, the
>> members of the "basic source character set" arguably have values on an
>> implementation-defined basis. Per [cpp.cond]p12
>> <http://eel.is/c++draft/cpp.cond#12>, the values of character literals
>> used in a conditional preprocessing directive may have values different
>> from their values in the execution character set; and if they don't
>> correspond to the values of the basic source character set members, then I
>> don't know what else they might correspond to. This may be indicative of
>> the existence of an additional, currently unnamed, conditionally-defined
>> character set.
>>
> Sounds like the last there, except we can simply go with
> implementation-defined. If could happen to be the same as the execution
> character set.
>

Agreed that going with making these comparison implementation-defined there
might be the best option. Cleaning that up might be breaking, especially as
ebcdic encodings
may not have contiguous values for a-z, A-Z. Would definitively require
some research

If we could fix that properly, converting to execution encoding before
doing the computation would make sense.


>
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>