C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: Wording strategy for Unicode std::format
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-04-26 22:18:02

On 4/22/21 11:16 AM, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
> Hey Victor,
> I hope you are doing well, thanks for your reply!
> A few comments below.
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:26 PM Victor Zverovich
> <victor.zverovich_at_[hidden] <mailto:victor.zverovich_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> > Peter:
> > What should the following code do?
> I think (1) is the only acceptable option because all the rest are
> inconsistent with existing std::format overloads.
> > “std::locale in its current form is pretty much useless,” may be
> a true statement but it doesn’t help me make progress.
> Maybe we are trying to make "progress" in the wrong direction? We
> don't have to quickly hack something together for new std::format
> overloads. We didn't have a chance to look at locale in C++20 but
> now is a great time.
> > Corentin:
> > Converting between UTF-X and UTF-Y is a lossless operation.
> Only valid ones. There is still a question of handling transcoding
> errors.
> I think to make progress SG16 will need to resolve "what if a string
> pretends to be in encoding X but isn't".
> In this case, what happens when a u8 string isn't a u8 string? (this
> is a rhetorical question, I don't expect SG16 will come to an
> agreement any time soon).
> Only then can we make progress - P1880 had a point.

We had consensus on P1880 within SG16; at least for the direction.  We
forwarded it to LEWG to resolve C++20 FR164.  I believe wording
challenges, and the author choosing to no longer pursue it, are what has
prevented progress.


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