C++ Logo


Advanced search

[SG16] P2348: Feedback on r1 draft

From: Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 19:30:23 -0400
My thanks to the author for addressing the feedback given on r0. I now have
feedback (below) on r1.

-- HT

I believe the author is already aware that the comment grammar should be
corrected to indicate a sequence of characters within the comment.
I believe similarly with regards to objections to using the grammar term in

As noted in the SG 16 meeting today, the paper removes the freedom for an
implementation to consider a preprocessing directive containing vertical
tab or form feed as being an error. This is a design decision that the
paper does not acknowledge as such. I believe that noting this change
clearly in the paper's design section is sufficient to remedy this.

I have the following additional concerns about the wording:

In [lex.phases],
"introducing new-line characters for end-of-line indicators"
is removed.

I do not believe that this is helpful. The presumed intent remains that
implementations may introduce line-breaks of one form or another for
end-of-line indicators that do not correspond particularly to any "physical
source file character".
Note that [cpp.line] contains a reference ("or introduced") to this text.

In the new [lex.whitespaces] subclause, the following is added:
whitespaces are ignored except as they serve to separate tokens

This seems to have come from the text being removed out of [lex.token]
(where it was excusable). Whitespace separation is significant in
[cpp.replace.general], etc. This sentence should at best be a note in
relation to phase 7 of translation.

Received on 2021-09-08 18:30:51