C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG16] Towards a better description of the execution encoding

From: Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 20:46:04 +0000
I would like to know if there is consensus that producing mojibake is always a bug.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Jens Maurer via SG16
> Sent: 02 March 2021 20:45
> To: sg16_at_[hidden]; Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>; Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [SG16] Towards a better description of the execution encoding
> On 02/03/2021 10.35, Corentin via SG16 wrote:
> > My intent is to say " The standard assumes that all strings are
> interpreted by local specific functions as being encoded by the execution
> encoding and if that's not the case, you will get mojibake or any other
> behavior that may be the result of your input not being interpreted
> correctly"
> Why do we have to say anything here, beyond possibly clarifying the
> locale-dependent functions such as isalpha that they're not talking
> about a character set (or characters), but about an encoding of such?
> The fact that we've divorced the literal encoding from the execution
> encoding is exactly because they are entirely unrelated, as sad as
> that may be. "Unrelated" means no constraints, and we don't need to
> spend text in the standard (beyond a note or two) specifying the
> absence of restrictions.
> Any time the introduction of limited constraints was brought up here
> in the past month, a real-world counterexample was quickly found,
> where we'd shy away from making it non-conforming.
> Jens
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg
> 16__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!XR06PLcM-9I92I2-
> gdzFqmYGmkxk9gD3N2SpU88VeYP9M3MDg21QInT21yWbgA$

Received on 2021-03-02 14:46:16