In view of the acceptance of p2290 delimited escape sequences, I think
allowing named universal escapes everywhere UCNs are now might make more
sense than restricting them to just in literals?

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021, 04:53 Corentin Jabot <corentinjabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> https://compiler-explorer.com/z/z5rqPYMM8
>
> Note that this implementation might not be reflective of the exact
> semantic proposed in the paper.
> It is derived from the implementation here
> https://cor3ntin.github.io/posts/cp_to_name/
> The implementation in clang was straightforward; it took a couple hours to
> integrate.
> However the bulk of the work here is wrangling the database to a
> sufficiently compressed state, and that work was already done.
>
> I have not found a significant increase of size in my build.
> The clang release build is over 100MB depending on options (although the
> debian package manages to make it under 50MB)
> This adds ~500K which does not seem significant.
> The overall size of clang is more likely to be affected by which compiler
> it is compiled with, whether LTO was used and so forth.
> GCC seems to be a bit smaller - around 30MB or so If I accounted for all
> the files correctly.
>
> So the answer to the size is that depending on compiler and compilation
> options, this would result in a 0.5%-2% or there
> about increase in size of the compiler binaries.
>
> Is that too significant? I do not know
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:32 PM Steve Downey via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/cygri/htmldiff
>> And I was surprised at how well it worked out of the box. That was
>> just `htmldiff p2071r0.html d2071r1.html > diff.html `
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 9:35 AM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Steve! What did you use to generate the marked up diff?
>>> Whatever it was produced a great result!
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>> On 9/16/21 5:31 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
>>>
>>> I've attached a marked up rich difference between the two versions on
>>> github. It does look like it's a sensible state, although yes, wording will
>>> need updates.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:38 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> 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.
>>>> - Implement the proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Richard Smith had requested that \N{...} be allowed in identifiers for
>>>> consistency with \u and \U. We should, of course, just acknowledge that
>>>> Richard is always right and do that :)
>>>>
>>>> Wording changes may additionally be needed for P2314. Maybe for one or
>>>> more of Corentin's recent papers as well.
>>>>
>>>> Tom.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/15/21 3:21 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/798#issuecomment-585750666
>>>> has notes from JF
>>>>
>>>> EWG Prague Thursday afternoon:
>>>>
>>>> We’re interested in supporting named universal character escapes.
>>>> SF F N A SA
>>>> 14 5 0 0 0
>>>>
>>>> This should further support aliases.
>>>> SF F N A SA
>>>> 18 2 1 0 0
>>>>
>>>> It should further be case insensitive.
>>>> SF F N A SA
>>>> 0 6 6 9 2
>>>>
>>>> It should further support UAX44-LM2 with arbitrary spaces and dashes.
>>>> SF F N A SA
>>>> 1 4 5 8 5
>>>>
>>>> The paper is *not* tentatively ready yet. We want to see the updated
>>>> paper before marking it as tentatively ready.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I missed Prague, but this might be enough, if you don't have any more
>>>> detailed notes. I can check the wiki as well.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:46 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/21 2:31 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
>>>>> > If I am reading the github correctly, EWG would like to see some
>>>>> > revision before picking it up again. Is there something I can
>>>>> > help with? This looks like it's really close and desired and quite
>>>>> > possible for 23?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I recall there not being much to do, but I need to find my list
>>>>> of
>>>>> what that is. I would very much appreciate the help. I'll hunt down
>>>>> that
>>>>> list and try to get it to you later today or tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>>
>