On 17/06/2020 17.06, Tom Honermann via Core wrote:
> ISO/IEC 10646:2017 3.10 defines the term /code point/ as "value in the UCS codespace".
>
> Note that the definition restricts the term to the Unicode character set (UCS).
>
> SG16 may be interested in adopting this term as a generic term applicable to any character set, perhaps as if it were defined as "a value in the codespace of a character set".
>
> The question is how or whether the C++ standard can overload or override terms from its normative references in this way. [intro.defs] <http://eel.is/c++draft/intro.defs> already provides overloaded definitions for terms used in different portions of the standard. Would it be reasonable to provide a definition of /code point/ in this section that differs from that in ISO/IEC 10646? If so, would some form of disambiguation be required?

I wouldn't be surprised if we already repurposed some defined term
from one of our normative references to mean something else,
ignorant of the definition contained in the normative reference.

So, as long as we're clear that we're adding a local definition
(for example, because we extend [intro.defs]), we should be
fine.

Jens