On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:27 AM Steve Downey via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Could we perhaps make use of the encoding used by the "C" locale to talk
>> about how the "encoding of the execution character set" is meant to be
>> interpreted? http://eel.is/c++draft/lex.ccon#2
>> Execution encoding isn't currently used in the standard as that exact
>> phrase, although lex.ccon does come close, as does
>> http://eel.is/c++draft/tab:lex.string.literal
>>
> The sentence above is using "encoding of the execution character set" for
> its position in the status quo of the working draft, right? That is, we
> should read it as saying that the "literal encoding" can be taken as the
> locale-specific encoding used in the C locale. In practice, that's not true
> (e.g., literals encoded as UTF-8 on systems with a C locale using
> US-ASCII). What is probably true is that the encoding difference is not
> observable if only characters from the basic execution character set are
> used. I think it is safe to say that there are seriously many
> scripts/programs that (ab)use text processing facilities via the property
> that "C" locales basically treat bytes as characters.
>
>>
>> Yes, I'm trying to make sure we're agreeing what the status quo is that
we're changing. Execution encoding isn't currently defined (although
everyone thinks it is), so maybe we can just avoid defining it. There's
literal encoding and what locale provides for the associated encodings for
char and wchar. That literal encoding may be different than that at
runtime, and also from the "C" locale, is a large part of what we're trying
to describe?