We had a French NB meeting yesterday (without cheese or wine,
unfortunately).
I'm trying to get us to share a draft but in the meantime, here are some of
the SG-16 related NB comments coming our way (there are more!):

FR

[uaxid]

ed

The usefulness of that clause is debatable.

Please state in [lex.name] the set of rules/profiles followed by c++
identifiers, rather than listing all of the rules that do not apply.

Only state "C++ conforms to UAX31 by meeting the requirements R1 “Default
Identifiers” and R4 “Equivalent Normalized Identifiers” and remove [uaxid]


FR

[format.string.escaped]

te

The intent of "escaped strings" is unclear and unsuited to many spoken
languages

As it stands, this features escapes

   -

   Invalid code unit sequences
   -

   Non printable characters
   -

   All combining marks and other grapheme extenders
   -

   Whitespaces using different techniques
   -

   escape \ and "


It is not clear that all these behaviours should be regrouped in the same
facility.

In particular, escaping all combining codepoints is not suitable for many
languages, especially Korean.

Please consider either:

   -

   Not escaping combining codepoints which are part of a grapheme cluster.
   -

   Removing this feature and replace it by a set of facilities performing
   each of these operations in a future C++ standard



Should we have time:

FR

[format.string.std]

p2

te

The range of codepoints to be considered of width 2 is not compatible with
recent and future unicode versions.

Please adopt LWG3780 for C++23, backported to C++20



On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:31 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <
sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> This is your friendly reminder that this meeting is taking place tomorrow.
>
> The German NB has released a draft of their NB comments. None of those
> require review by SG16. As far as I know, no other NB (other than INCITS
> for the US) has released draft comments yet.
>
> Any polling conducted tomorrow will be for changes relative to the status
> quo (the balloted document for which N4917 <https://wg21.link/n4917> is
> close enough); not relative to other NB comments (which some of us may or
> may not have knowledge of).
>
> Tom.
> On 10/14/22 12:20 AM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, October 19th, at 19:30 UTC (timezone
> conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20221019T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest>
> ).
>
> The agenda is:
>
> - NB comment processing.
>
> The details below are a copy of what was originally included with the
> agenda for the October 12th meeting.
>
> 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
>