Subject: Re: Handling of non-basic characters in early translation phases
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-20 12:15:28
On 20/06/2020 18.10, Hubert Tong wrote:
> I don't want to throw a wrench into everything; however, this is what I believe the situation is (with the caveat that the C99 Rationale document is a product of WG 14 and not of WG 21):
> The "status quo" is the result of wording defects. The design intent is that the three models are isomorphic by way of making it impossible for the user to observe the differences between models. The undefined behaviour cases were designed to prevent observance of the model actually used by the compiler. The removal of the undefined behaviour is a departure from the original design intent.
Agreed; the "undefined behavior" needs to stay
to avoid stepping on SG12's toes.
> example in the rationale document is meant to indicate that
> is problematic as is plain
Do we have to do something special about that situation?
> Similarly, the observability of funnelling through UCNs is a wording defect.
Is it observable anywhere?
SG16 list run by email@example.com