On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 1:16 PM Martinho Fernandes via SG16
<sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:05 PM Aaron Ballman via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:08 PM Alisdair Meredith via SG16
>> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > For a cross compiler, the basic execution character set should correspond to the target platform, but the diagnostics character set should be for the host?
>>
>> That matches my understanding.
>>
>> I suppose a question I could add is whether anyone would like to see a
>> new character set introduced for diagnostics. My intuition is that it
>> would be a pretty heavy hammer to bring to bear and that the basic
>> source character set is probably Good Enough (tm).
>>
>
> Wouldn't these diagnostics be the place people are more likely to use non-basic source characters, though? When it comes to identifiers people will sometimes compromise and restrict themselves and e.g. avoid diacritics, but in error messages I feel like it makes a lot more sense to want to write with the full expression of their native script.

I think that's likely a valid point, but I'm struggling to find any
data that I can point to in the paper. I don't suppose you (or anyone
in SG16) have insights into how often this comes up in practice? e.g.,
does someone have evidence that this comes up enough to warrant making
a diagnostic character set? Does anyone think that would be a worse
approach than limiting to the basic source character set?

Thanks!

~Aaron

> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16