On 13/09/2021 12.02, Corentin wrote:
> Here is a draft of changes as requested by SG16, Jens, and Hubert
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2348R1.pdf <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2348R1.pdf>
>
> I found it better for /whitespace/ to refer to a single whitespace instead of describing a sequence. I have adjusted the pluralisation of everything accordingly.

Hm... "/whitespace/ containing at least one line-break" doesn't align
with the idea that /whitespace/ refers to a single character.

Jens


> I've added some notes to clarify the intent in important places

> I've used Hubert's excellent suggestion for phase 1 of translation
> I've put back some prose to describe multi-line comments
> I made sure whitespace does not appear at the start of a sentence
> I introduced the grammar term line-break-character to describe single-codepoint line-breaks (\n, \r) independently of line-breaks sequences (like \r\n)
>
> Hopefully we can take this of the hands of SG16!
>
> Thanks again for the feedback,
>
> Corentin
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:36 AM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden] <mailto:Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> On 09/09/2021 22.54, Hubert Tong wrote:
>
> > (2)
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > I am happy to remove it entirely.
> > It's certainly not needed for phase 7. And I think phase 3 wording says something similar.
> >
> > In [cpp.pre], Jens objected to my removal of
> >
> > > The only whitespace characters that shall appear between preprocessing tokens within a preprocessing directive (from just after the directive-introducing token through just before the terminating new-line character) are space and horizontal-tab (including spaces that have replaced comments or possibly other whitespace characters in translation phase 3).
> >
> > I am not able to convince myself than the grammar described at the start at [cpp.pre] allows line-breaks to appear between preprocessing tokens within a preprocessing directive,
> > but I'm happy to replaced the striked paragraph by
> >
> > Only /horizontal-whitespace/s shall appear between preprocessing tokens within a preprocessing directive.
> >
> >
> > This is neither necessary nor harmless. The term "preprocessing directive" is defined right after the grammar in [cpp.pre]. Its definition precludes the presence of line-breaks outside of /**/ between preprocessing tokens within the directive. We do want to allow comments in preprocessing directives.
>
> Good point; I was missing [cpp.pre] p1, which seems to say everything we want to say.
> So, I'm good with the removal now.
>
> > This seems to point to another problem with the wording:
> > (3)
> > The removal of the comment replacement in phase 3 means that the definition of preprocessing directives requires an update to qualify that it wants to talk about line-breaks (but not those that are inside /**/ comments).
>
> Indeed, the status quo seems to allow new-lines within /* comments */ inside a preprocessing-directive.
>
> Maybe it would be clearer/easier to retain the replacement of comments with a single space
> character in phase 3? While we do need to differentiate different kinds of whitespace
> (horizontal whitespace vs. new-lines) in phase 4, there's no point in talking about comments
> separately beyond phase 3.
>
> Jens
>