Subject: Re: What do we want from source to internal conversion?
From: Hubert Tong (hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-20 17:54:19
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:38 AM Corentin via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 17:17, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 6/15/20 7:14 AM, Corentin via SG16 wrote:
>> But (I think) we should
>> - Tighten the specification to describe a semantic rather than
>> implementation defined mapping, while also making sure that mappings
>> prescribed by vendors, or Unicode, such as UTF-EBCDIC are
>> not accidentally forbidden.
>> That sounds good to me. However, as we've recently learned, there are
>> certain implementation shenanigans that need to be accounted for:
>> - gcc stripping white space following a line continuation character
>> (I think you intend to adopt this behavior in general though).
>> - trigraphs
>> Whitespace stripping will be a ewg proposal in that mailing.
> Hopefully trigraph can either happen in an undocumented phase 0, or be
> understood as part of "semantic mapping"
Sorry for the late post. It's been a busy week. I believe the discussion
has progressed such that reviving this thread might not be the most
productive, but the point of trigraphs appear to have last appeared only on
The behaviour of trigraphs is still subject to "magic" reversal in raw
strings, so a "phase 0" approach leaves the reversal as "magic".
SG16 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org