On 01/07/2020 09.23, Corentin Jabot wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, 00:28 Jens Maurer via Core <core_at_[hidden] <mailto:core_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> On 30/06/2020 06.15, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
> > No, especially wide multi characters that are simply not a thing, let's not make them one.
>
> I don't follow. In the status quo working draft, we have in [lex.ccon] p5
> after the note:
>
> "The value of a wide-character literal containing multiple c-char s is implementation-defined."
>
>
> I would rather it doesn't have a name, especially not one that makes it look like it behaves like multi character literals, which it doesn't (not an int, value computed differently). As such I would like it if core would consider keeping the above sentence below the table ( same thing for what tom calls conditional characters literals - both of them).
> Giving names to things tends to make them feel more important or intended, which I think we should avoid in this case.

From a CWG perspective, clarity of specification rules. If giving
names to things helps, then there shall be names.
"Feel of importance" is not relevant from that perspective.

That said, I agree that "conditional character literal" is an odd name,
and I've made a suggestion for a different one in my other e-mail.

Jens