C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG16] SG16 meeting summary for March 24th, 2021

From: Alisdair Meredith <alisdairm_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 17:07:47 -0400
Thanks. I’m glad we resolved this on the SG16 reflector and not a larger list :)

In my idea world, the “except that” would move from the normative text into a following [Note:...], but perfection is the enemy of the good, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no more even minor concerns on this paper from me - and thanks for putting in all the work. This may seem like a small thing, but I believe it is a vital building block towards truly portable C++ source files.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 17:01, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 28/03/2021 22.56, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>> Thanks - that was exactly my thoughts, and I missed it when Corentin tried to correct me. All clear now, although is the reference to Raw string literals still useful, or more likely to lead to folks like me mid reading too quickly, and getting confused?
>> I believe there would be no cha he of behavior if we strike the “except” that can no longer occur.
> No. If we strike the "except", we give the impression that a spliced character
> sequence in a raw string literal that looks like a UCN is somehow special,
> and would cause undefined behavior. It doesn't.
> (Note that it says "that matches the syntax". Although UCNs are never
> formed in raw string literals, the phrasing could be read to actually
> care for UCNs in raw string literals. Not good.)
> Jens

Received on 2021-03-28 16:07:51