Sounds good to me, but SG16 should review first. I anticipate such
review occurring during one of our two February telecons.

Tom.

On 1/23/22 7:30 PM, JeanHeyd Meneide via SG16 wrote:
> Dear JF,
>
> If you and everyone else approve, I'm more than happy to make
> that happen.
>
> Sincerely,
> JeanHeyd
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 7:13 PM JF Bastien <cxx_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:cxx_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Since it's not a new feature, but rather a bugfix, then we still
> have time to make it to 23. Would you want me to do so? I haven't
> scheduled EWG meetings fro 2022 yet, giving everyone a break.
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 8:58 PM JeanHeyd Meneide via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Dear Jens,
>
> I had no intention of filing (or asking someone to file)
> an NB comment, albeit now that the paper is released I don't
> think I could stop someone from doing it. I don't mind if it's
> C++26 material because it's a DR, so it would always apply to
> C++20. (Albeit, it's probably better if it's fixed sooner
> rather than later.)
>
> If EWG can squeeze it in and everyone's fine with it,
> I'll try to attend an EWG meeting and answer questions and get
> it forwarded so I can do CWG -> plenary for C++23!
>
> Sincerely,
> JeanHeyd
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 4:12 AM Jens Maurer
> <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden] <mailto:Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2022 05.41, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> > Thank you for the feedback! Most of it has been
> applied. The paper title does say "Fixes" but this
> probably does just classify as a single fix, so I'll
> change the title. Originally, I was dabbling with the idea
> of adding pointer conversions from UTF-8 string literals
> (and only UTF-8 string literals) to (in order of
> preference for overloading and conversion ranking) const
> char8_t* -> const unsigned char* -> const char*, but that
> paper would be COLOSSAL. I'd likely require an
> implementation to prove it works in practice, too, since
> it would touch conversion rules, ranking, and overload
> resolution.
>
> > This single fix is more than enough to get us by
> for now, and already has ample existing practice (it was
> the way it was before!).
>
> The "target" of the paper says C++26.
>
> I thought you wanted it considered as a C++20 bug fix,
> which should go into C++23 ?
>
> It's certainly short enough and bug-fixy enough to go through
> EWG and CWG in the coming months, and I'd rather have it
> discussed now as opposed to dealing with an NB comment later.
>
> Jens
>
>
>
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 4:31 PM Jens Maurer via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>
> <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>>> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > - Wording:
> >
> > …
> >
> > However, we discuss here "UTF-8 string literal", and
> a few words later we talk
> > about a "char8_t-typed string-literal". Is there
> any intended difference between
> > these? If so, I need help in seeing the
> difference. If not, just say
> > ", or by such a string literal enclosed in braces."
> >
> >
> > This was actually just due to copying the previous
> sentence and trying to have an almost carbon-copy
> word-for-word here. Your formulation is much better, so
> I'm just going to go with that! I also changed "can" in
> the previous sentence to "may" as well, so we don't have a
> weird can/may or may/can split. Updated paper here:
> https://thephd.dev/_vendor/future_cxx/papers/d2513.html
> <https://thephd.dev/_vendor/future_cxx/papers/d2513.html>
> <https://thephd.dev/_vendor/future_cxx/papers/d2513.html
> <https://thephd.dev/_vendor/future_cxx/papers/d2513.html>>
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > JeanHeyd Meneide
>
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG16_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16>
>
>