I have no meeting to join for today? Only for next week?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:24 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <
sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 10/19/22 6:02 AM, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:22 AM Peter Brett via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve reviewed the British Standards Institute committee’s draft comments
>> and I have not found any which require SG16 review.
>>
>>
>>
>> I personally have been absolutely snowed under with regular work during
>> the whole of the comment period and I haven’t even had the opportunity to
>> glance at the committee draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>
> Hey Peter,
> I'm seeing a comment about new-lines/P2348 in the list of GB comments.
> Given that Core decided against the direction of P2348, SG16 might want to
> revisit that question.
>
> I wasn't aware of CWG having made such a decision. The last CWG discussion
> I see for P2348 is
> https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2022/Teleconference2022-09-09#D2348R3_Whitespaces_Wording_Reva
> from 2022-09-09. That discussion was for a draft R3 revision and ends with
> "Corentin redrafting". P2348R3 <https://wg21.link/p2348r3> was submitted
> for the September mailing. Does the published revision address CWG's
> direction? Or was there a more recent discussion I'm not aware of?
>
> Tom.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> *On Behalf Of *Tom
>> Honermann via SG16
>> *Sent:* 18 October 2022 21:31
>> *To:* sg16_at_[hidden]
>> *Cc:* Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [SG16] Agenda for the 2022-10-19 SG16 telecon
>>
>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wg21.link/n4917__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!BObYHCxLPJ4bb2Cfrzw4knCcZud98cCwcpQF-Iw4t1b4p8zqowXOQr-6K0M7Aqtujj9JmRL1cCuaIPY$>
>> is close enough); not relative to other NB comments (which some of us may
>> or may not have knowledge of).
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> On 10/14/22 12:20 AM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>>
>> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, October 19th, at 19:30 UTC (timezone
>> conversion
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20221019T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pdt&p3=tz_mdt&p4=tz_cdt&p5=tz_edt&p6=tz_cest__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!BObYHCxLPJ4bb2Cfrzw4knCcZud98cCwcpQF-Iw4t1b4p8zqowXOQr-6K0M7Aqtujj9JmRL1ljvU2sY$>
>> ).
>>
>> 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]
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/eel.is/c**Adraft/defns.multibyte__;Kys!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!BObYHCxLPJ4bb2Cfrzw4knCcZud98cCwcpQF-Iw4t1b4p8zqowXOQr-6K0M7Aqtujj9JmRL1QFFp2co$>
>>
>> The notion of an "execution character set" is no longer given prominence
>> in the Draft standard, aside from some notes about its relationship to the
>> concept as defined by C, and clarifying that certain character encodings
>> are unrelated to this character set. This makes it a questionable choice
>> for use in the definition of "multibyte character".
>>
>> *Proposed change:*
>>
>> Change the definition of "multibyte character" to use a character
>> encoding with a more definite specification given by the Standard.
>> US-38: [format.string.escaped]
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/eel.is/c**Adraft/format.string.escaped__;Kys!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!BObYHCxLPJ4bb2Cfrzw4knCcZud98cCwcpQF-Iw4t1b4p8zqowXOQr-6K0M7Aqtujj9JmRL1XoaPMxs$>
>>
>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/eel.is/c**Adraft/uaxid.pattern__;Kys!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!BObYHCxLPJ4bb2Cfrzw4knCcZud98cCwcpQF-Iw4t1b4p8zqowXOQr-6K0M7Aqtujj9JmRL1nlkDy64$>
>>
>> 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
>