C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Is the concept of basic execution character sets useful?
From: Hubert Tong (hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-30 11:39:48


On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:38 AM Jean-Marc Bourguet via SG16 <
sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Le 30/01/2021 à 12:18, Corentin via SG16 a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:39 AM Hubert Tong <
> hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:57 AM Corentin via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>
> ------
>
> The execution character set
> <http://eel.is/c++draft/lex.charset#def:character_set,basic_execution> and
> wide execution character set
> <http://eel.is/c++draft/lex.charset#def:character_set,basic_execution> are
> implementation-defined character encodings such that:
>
> Years ago -- a decade or so -- I convinced myself that using narrow
> character set and wide character set was misleading as my comprehension was
> that the intent was to have one character set per locale with a narrow
> encoding (potentially multi-byte, potentially stateful) and a wide encoding
> where each code point was represented by one code unit. If we are
> reformulating that area, it may be worthwhile to state what is desired here
> in this respect (either my interpretation or the current intent at the time
> of the re-formulation).
>
The wording of wcstombs says that the narrow character set need not
represent all of the wide characters:
If a wide character is encountered that does not correspond to a valid
multibyte character, [ ... ]



SG16 list run by sg16-owner@lists.isocpp.org