C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings

From: Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:39:13 +0000
Hi Corentin,

Thank you for this revision. I have cross-referenced with previous feedback received on the list.

  * Please replace “translation set” with “translation character set” to match the wording used in P2314R2’s [lex.phases].
  * [dcl.asm] looks good to me
  * Are you sure that the added/removed text highlighting is correct in [dcl.link]? There seem to be changes w.r.t. the current working draft that aren’t in blue/red.
  * Thank you for the note in [cpp.line].
  * Did you consider Jens’ suggestion to move the introduction of unevaluated-string from [lex] to [dcl.pre]? I thing he provided a good rationale for why an unevaluated-string cannot be identified until phase 7.
  * Unevaluated strings do not have terminating nuls, so probably the “implicit terminating ‘\0’” wording should be removed from [over.lex].
  * [cpp.pragma.op] looks good to me.

Best wishes,


From: SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Corentin via SG16
Sent: 17 November 2021 21:36
To: SG16 <sg16_at_lists.isocpp.org>
Cc: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
Subject: [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings

Dear SG-16.
Here is a new revision of P2361 with wording fixes as requested.

Received on 2021-11-18 07:39:20