Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:34:44 +0100
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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].
>
> Thanks
>
> - [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.
>
> Yep, the note was not in green, fixed
>
> - 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.
>
> Jens provided good motivation as to why they cannot be pp-token, and that
was addressed in R2.
If CWG decides to move them to another section it doesn't affect the design
in any way, it's a matter of wording organization.
Can we punt that point to the core?
> - Unevaluated strings do not have terminating nuls, so probably the
> “implicit terminating ‘\0’” wording should be removed from [over.lex].
>
> This wording appertains to user-defined-string-literal, which are
not unevaluated-string (there was a bug in that sentence though, the
strikethrough text should have red string-literal, funny we didn't notice
>
> - [cpp.pragma.op] looks good to me.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Corentin via
> SG16
> *Sent:* 17 November 2021 21:36
> *To:* SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL MAIL
>
> Dear SG-16.
>
> Here is a new revision of P2361 with wording fixes as requested.
>
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2361R4.pdf
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/isocpp.org/files/papers/P2361R4.pdf__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!SoN57y6w_ggAhTm6z11rnfQeHfbLSX1FqxKi43gLS00ysLRYjFMYR9qlokOIrA$>
>
> 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].
>
> Thanks
>
> - [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.
>
> Yep, the note was not in green, fixed
>
> - 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.
>
> Jens provided good motivation as to why they cannot be pp-token, and that
was addressed in R2.
If CWG decides to move them to another section it doesn't affect the design
in any way, it's a matter of wording organization.
Can we punt that point to the core?
> - Unevaluated strings do not have terminating nuls, so probably the
> “implicit terminating ‘\0’” wording should be removed from [over.lex].
>
> This wording appertains to user-defined-string-literal, which are
not unevaluated-string (there was a bug in that sentence though, the
strikethrough text should have red string-literal, funny we didn't notice
>
> - [cpp.pragma.op] looks good to me.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Corentin via
> SG16
> *Sent:* 17 November 2021 21:36
> *To:* SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL MAIL
>
> Dear SG-16.
>
> Here is a new revision of P2361 with wording fixes as requested.
>
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2361R4.pdf
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/isocpp.org/files/papers/P2361R4.pdf__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!SoN57y6w_ggAhTm6z11rnfQeHfbLSX1FqxKi43gLS00ysLRYjFMYR9qlokOIrA$>
>
Received on 2021-11-23 04:34:57