> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_gmx.net>
> Sent: 22 June 2021 22:59
> Cc: Charlie Barto <Charles.Barto_at_microsoft.com>; Corentin
> <corentin.jabot_at_gmail.com>
>
> On 22/06/2021 23.54, Charlie Barto via SG16 wrote:
> >> The encoding scheme of a physical source file is determined in an
> implementation-
> >> defined manner. An implementation shall provide a mechanism to
> determine the
> >> encoding of a source file that is independent of its content.
> >
> > How does this work if the file is stored in an encoding where, for
> example, all the characters in the basic source character set had multi-
> byte representations, or were otherwise different from the "usual" values?
> Would this be in the form of a new preprocessor mechanism that asked the
> encoding of some other source file?
>
> "determine" wants to say "expressly specified by the user" (e.g. by
> command-line flag), but we don't have words to say that in the
> standard (because the standard has never heard about a command line).
>
> But I agree, we should find a better phrasing than "determine".
> Maybe "assert"?
>
> Oh, and the quoted text also needs to fix the ambiguous antecedent
> for "that is independent": As it stands, it refers to the source
> file or the encoding, but we want it to apply to "mechanism".

Hi Jens and Charlie,

Thank you for this feedback.

I would be interested in also hearing your feedback on the wording I suggested in my e-mail of 2021-06-14:

    https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2021/06/2438.php

What do you think of it as an alternative way of expressing the same intent?

Best regards,

                 Peter

P.S. The lists.isocpp.org archives continue to handle text encoding dreadfully... argh