Subject: Re: Wording for P2295 based on P2314
From: Charlie Barto (Charles.Barto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-06-24 14:02:10
Somewhat Ironically the lists.isocpp.com site presents Peter's 6/14 email with a bunch of mojibake!
I think the meaning of "Determine" will be reasonably clear from the context of where this wording is going in the standard. I know I've had to be told my reading is wrong several times for both new and existing wording, I think this indicates that I'm not very familiar with this part of the standard, rather than that the wording is actually confusing.
From: Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1:20 AM
To: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>; Charlie Barto <Charles.Barto_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>; sg16_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [SG16] Wording for P2295 based on P2314
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: 22 June 2021 22:59
> Cc: Charlie Barto <Charles.Barto_at_[hidden]>; Corentin
> On 22/06/2021 23.54, Charlie Barto via SG16 wrote:
> >> The encoding scheme of a physical source file is determined in an
> >> 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:
What do you think of it as an alternative way of expressing the same intent?
P.S. The lists.isocpp.org archives continue to handle text encoding dreadfully... argh
SG16 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org