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.

Charlie.
-----Original Message-----
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
> <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
>
> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fsg16%2F2021%2F06%2F2438.php&amp;data=04%7C01%7CCharles.Barto%40microsoft.com%7Cfb379d6ad53e4c17ecd208d9361fbc02%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637600332777493863%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=DF3qY5ZJQRg4ATAmE3OySy61kk27VmjM0sy8qy4Ix5M%3D&amp;reserved=0

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