On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 4:13 AM Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 9:52 AM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2021 04.53, Hubert Tong via SG16 wrote:
>> > With respect to the new encodability restriction for strings, I believe
>> that unevaluated strings should not be treated the same way as strings that
>> need to be translated into a literal encoding. I think we may need to
>> advance P2361 ("Unevaluated strings") first.
>>
>> The paragraph in question starts with
>> "String literal objects are initialized with the sequence of code unit
>> values..."
>>
>> The existing text using /string-literal/ in various places makes it clear
>> when
>> and if a string-literal is converted to a string literal object.
>> Insofar, I consider P2361 superfluous.
>>
>
Aside from P2361's intentional changes, it highlights the fact that
diagnosable rules and semantics around string literals are underspecified
in contexts where strings are not used to initialize a string literal
object. It was rather easier to (intentionally) squint at the wording the
other way before.


>
> Agreed, I don't see a reason to introduce a dependency between the two
> papers.
> P2361 only changes are in regard to numeric sequences and encoding prefixes
>

I can agree that a strict reading means that P1854 is not causing a worse
problem of over-restricting uninitialized strings.