Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 21:53:09 +0200
On 15/09/2021 21.38, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> I attached a draft R1 with changes I had previously worked on. I briefly looked at it and I don't think I left it in a half-baked state, but it would be worth diffing it against the P0 revision with a reasonable HTML diffing tool to make sure. The "Changes since P2071R0" section suggest I addressed the issues raised in Prague.
>
> The todo list I have includes:
>
> * Add discussion regarding the use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Add a proposal option to allow use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Rebase wording on the current WD; particularly due to the adoption of P2029.
It would be good to get these points done and send the paper to EWG again, before:
> * Implement the proposal.
... because that might take more time.
Jens
> I attached a draft R1 with changes I had previously worked on. I briefly looked at it and I don't think I left it in a half-baked state, but it would be worth diffing it against the P0 revision with a reasonable HTML diffing tool to make sure. The "Changes since P2071R0" section suggest I addressed the issues raised in Prague.
>
> The todo list I have includes:
>
> * Add discussion regarding the use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Add a proposal option to allow use of \N{...} in identifiers.
> * Rebase wording on the current WD; particularly due to the adoption of P2029.
It would be good to get these points done and send the paper to EWG again, before:
> * Implement the proposal.
... because that might take more time.
Jens
Received on 2021-09-15 14:53:19