On 7/9/20 3:16 PM, Jens Maurer wrote:
> On 09/07/2020 18.28, Tom Honermann wrote:
>> On 7/8/20 3:15 PM, Jens Maurer wrote:
>>> Since all four well-known C++ implementations appear to
>>> produce an error for the test cases at
>>> https://compiler-explorer.com/z/4NDo-4
>>> I'm fine with specifying these as ill-formed.
>> I'm fine with that as well.
>>
>> Jens, would you consider such a change as evolutionary given that we don't know of any implementations (so far) that actually support these concatenations?
> I'm not the one to make the call here.
I know, I was just looking for an opinion from a CWG regular. Thank you.
> Strictly speaking, it changes the standard for some feature from
> "conditionally-supported" to "ill-formed", which does sound a bit
> evolutionary, in particular since we depart a little further from
> C here.
>
> However, personally, I'm ok with this going to Core right away.
>
> JF should make the call here.

Agreed.

We don't have a paper for this yet. If we have a volunteer to write a
paper to make concatenations involving mixed L"", u8"", u"", and U""
concatenations ill-formed, I'll be happy to discuss with JF with
encouragement to take it straight to Core.

Tom.