On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:52 PM William M. (Mike) Miller <
william.m.miller_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:01 AM Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> New draft, using that wording, except that I'm not touching the end of
>> line indicators, so that we can do that in P2348
>> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2295R6.pdf
>>
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> First, I really do not like the extremely repetitive use of the term
> "physical source file". As I understand it, "physical" is used to
> distinguish the input file from the logical source file resulting from the
> Phase 1 mapping. I'd be happy with replacing the term "physical source
> file" with "input file" or any other term that maintains the distinction
> between pre- and post-Phase-1 source.
>

Agreed, I would really want us to get consensus on that.


> (A related point is the use of "physical" in Phase 2 to describe lines. I
> think that's incorrect, since we're talking about backslashes and
> new-lines, which are post-mapping characters and might be different
> characters or, in the case of a new-line, not present at all in the
> physical source file. I think it's fine to just talk about "source" in
> Phase 2 and drop "physical" altogether.)
>
> My second comment regards new-line characters and end-of-line indicators.
> As I understand it, there are two real-world scenarios the existing wording
> is intended to cover: cases where different characters or sequences (CR,
> CRLF) are used instead of new-lines, and record-oriented files where there
> is no character at the end of a line. The word "introducing" is appropriate
> for the latter case, but it seems incongruous for the former. Could we
> replace that phrase with "representing end-of-line indicators as new-line
> characters"?
>

This is preexisting and better addressed when we process P2348 Whitespaces
Wording Revamp which addresses that point.