On 09/11/2022 15.20, Hubert Tong via SG16 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:57 AM Corentin Jabot via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> \N{\N{}} ?
>
> No, I really don't see the value in that, unicode character names are specified in a fixed set of characters, that is very unlikely to change
> (because these names are designed to be usable in a context where displaying/processing unicode is not possible)
>
>
> So the current wide allowance is expected purely for lexing purposes? (That's fine I guess).

Yes.

See h-char and q-char: We lex everything we can and figure out that the indicated
header doesn't exist as the next step.

Same here: We lex everything for an n-char-sequence and figure out that the
indicated Unicode character doesn't exist as the next step.

Jens


> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 8:50 PM Hubert Tong via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg16_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to anticipate that we may want \N{} escapes within n-char sequences someday and allow nested brace pairs today to reduce churn?
>
> https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2640.html <https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2640.html>
>
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG16_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16 <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16>
>
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG16_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16 <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16>
>
>