On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:52 PM Jens Maurer via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 19/01/2021 16.49, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
> > Damn, I finally see the issue.
> > Terribly sorry it took this long
> > Which leads me to think that the current order of operation is a better
> place to be in, unless we find a better mechanism
> >
> > I think that the status quo in terms of observable behavior pertaining
> to escape sequences is correct
> > I don't feel so good about the idea of introducing weird wording hacks
> such as more abstract characters to achieve that behavior while swapping
> operations.
>
> The current description doesn't work, either.
>
> > in any case there cannot be partial code unit sequences anywhere in each
> string.
>
> I don't agree. Hexadecimal escape sequences are specified to yield
> code units (not code points), and one code unit might very well be
> a partial sequence:
>
> "\x82" "\x45" // maybe this is some valid UTF-8
>

I think the user wants the byte unmodified in their string if they do that

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