C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Agenda for the 2022-10-12 SG16 telecon​

From: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 21:23:16 -0400
The CD ballot closes on 2022-11-01 and the official NB comments must be
available by then. That is less than a week before the Kona meeting
begins. Each NB has its own internal deadlines for NB comment
submissions and a timeline for making draft publications available. I
don't have insight into NBs other than INCITS. A request was sent to the
NB chairs mailing list requesting that each NB attach its draft
publication to the wiki
<https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21kona2022/Documents>. So far, none
have been added there, but I don't find that surprising at this time. I
also wouldn't be surprised if NB chairs forget to do so; feel free to
remind your NB chair to do so; I'll send an email as well.

As of right now, we only have two scheduled SG16 meetings before the
Kona meeting begins. We can add more as necessary as time gets closer,
but I'm hesitant to delay getting started. We can always revise any
positions we take as new information becomes available; I don't expect
any of CWG, EWG, LEWG, or LWG to take action on any positions we
establish before they meet in Kona.


On 10/6/22 8:24 PM, Victor Zverovich wrote:
> I agree with Corentin. When will all NB comments be known?
> - Victor
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:19 PM Corentin Jabot via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I would prefer to wait for all nb comments to be filled in. In
> particular, US-38 and US-64 may end up conflicting or overlapping
> with other NB comments.
> Thanks,
> Corentin
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tom Honermann via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, October 12th, at 19:30
> UTC (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20221012T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest>).
> The agenda is:
> * A presentation by Michael Kuperstein regarding i18n and
> l10n and existing practice in the industry.
> * NB comment processing.
> INCITS has made US NB comments available to its members. I
> reviewed the list and identified the following as ones that I
> believe SG16 should establish a position on. There are other
> comments that are related to papers SG16 has previously
> discussed, but in those cases, I believe the concerns raised
> do not require SG16 input.
> Due to duplicated comments in the list of US comments, it is
> possible that the comment identifiers below will change.
> US-2: [defns.multibyte] <http://eel.is/c++draft/defns.multibyte>
> The notion of an "execution character set" is no longer given
> prominence in the Draft standard, aside from some notes about
> its relationship to the concept as defined by C, and
> clarifying that certain character encodings are unrelated to
> this character set. This makes it a questionable choice for
> use in the definition of "multibyte character".
> *Proposed change:*
> Change the definition of "multibyte character" to use a
> character encoding with a more definite specification given by
> the Standard.
> US-38: [format.string.escaped]
> <https://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.escaped>
> The subject subclause describes how characters or strings are
> "escaped" to be formatted more suitably "for debugging or for
> logging".
> The actual suitability for debugging or for logging depends on
> the needs of the application, and there is a conflict between
> formatting for human readability of the textual content and
> formatting for clarity and fidelity of encoding nuances.
> Indeed, for the latter, there can still be (for stateful
> encodings) a conflict between formatting for human visual
> inspection versus formatting for machine consumption of the
> output sequence as a C++ string/character literal.
> The current design introduces extensions to the API and to the
> format string syntax that assume that there is one specific
> default that should be chosen "for debugging or for logging".
> The reasoning behind the chosen default and the extensibility
> of the current design does not appear to be sufficiently explored.
> Note 1:
> An example, for Unicode encodings, of a choice between
> prioritizing between human readability of the textual content
> and visual clarity of encoding nuances is in the treatment of
> characters having Unicode property Grapheme_Extend=Yes. The
> current design favors visual clarity of encoding nuances by
> outputing such characters as escape sequences.
> Note 2:
> For stateful encodings, the lack of return to the initial
> shift state at the end of the sequence cannot be represented
> using a C++ string/character literal unless if a prior shift
> sequence from the initial shift state is rendered via escape
> sequence(s). It is not clear that scanning forward is
> generally always an option (nor is it clear that doing so is
> desirable).
> *Proposed change:*
> Narrow the purported scope and affirm the design choices of
> the default behavior:
> Modify "logging" to "technical logging" and spell out the
> priorities in order in the description (this has the benefit
> of clearly communicating intention and providing guidance for
> implementation choices).
> 1. The output is intended to be a C++ string/character
> literal that reproduces the encoded sequence. (This seems
> to be taken for granted and not made explicit in the
> current draft.)
> 2. Prefer visually distinguishing between different methods
> of encoding "equivalent" textual content.
> Make any adjustments necessary to the API or the format string
> syntax associated with "escaped" strings to allow for future
> additions for alternative escaping.
> US-64: [uaxid.pattern] <https://eel.is/c++draft/uaxid.pattern>
> The Unicode org has clarified that the pattern whitespace and
> pattern syntax rules apply to the lexing and parsing of
> computer languages.
> *Proposed change:*
> Replace with "UAX#31 describes how formal languages such as
> computer languages should describe and implement their use of
> whitespace and syntactically significant characters during the
> processes of lexing and parsing. C++ does not claim
> conformance with this requirement."
> Tom.
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16

Received on 2022-10-07 01:23:18