On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, 19:10 Tom Honermann via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> EWG is scheduled to review P1819 (Interpolated Literals)
> <http://wg21.link/P1819> during its 2022-08-04 telecon. I believe EWG
> will only be performing an initial review to provide feedback to the author
> (CC'd). I won't be able to attend, but encourage other SG16 regulars to do
> so.
>
> It is not obvious to me whether there are text related concerns sufficient
> to justify SG16 spending time on this paper. Please respond with any
> opinions you might have. If EWG expresses disinterest in the paper, SG16
> won't spend time on it unless I hear overwhelming support that would
> suggest desire to challenge EWG's direction in that case.
>
> One question SG16 could address is whether support for interpolated
> strings should be extended to all string literal kinds. The paper proposes f"text
> {expression}" but is silent regarding whether something like u8f"text
> {expression}" or fL"text {expression}" should be supported (and if so,
> whether there is an ordering requirement between the encoding-prefix and
> the interpolated-string prefix). What other concerns do you believe should
> fall under SG16 purview?
>
I am not sure I think the paper as a whole needs to be pursued*, but if it
is, it should definitely support charN_t
Except we don't have a good model for that because we have not done the
work for std:: format which i definitively think is work that should
happen.
And we should have a consistent answer.
Unfortunately, i can't commit to take on that work.


* On non sg-16 related ground, namely the duplication of features with fmt
- especially formatters, and the overall cost/benefit which seems higher
than making fmt constexpr, (which we should)


Tom.
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>