C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Agenda for the 2022-11-30 SG16 telecon​; P2713R0 wording review

From: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 16:19:37 -0500
I spent a little time reviewing P2713R0 and I believe it accurately
reflects the prior SG16 consensus.

With regard to the wording, I think the second use of UCS scalar value
in the second modified bullet is not quite right. The other uses are of
the form "/C/ corresponds to a UCS scalar value" where /C/ is one of
those nebulous character things. I think we might want something like this:

    /CE/ is a Unicode encoding and /C/ corresponds to a UCS scalar value
    which has the Unicode property |Grapheme_Extend=Yes| and
    _*/C/*__**_is not immediately preceded in /S/ by a *UCS scalar
    value*_*character *__*/P/*_ appended to /E/ _*without translation to
    an escape sequence,*_ or


On 11/29/22 3:40 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, November 30th, at 19:30 UTC
> (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20221130T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pst&p3=tz_mst&p4=tz_cst&p5=tz_est&p6=tz_cet>).
> *This message will also serve as your friendly reminder that this
> meeting is taking place tomorrow. **I'm sorry for publishing an agenda
> so very late. *
> *For participants in the USA, please note that daylight savings time
> ended 2022-11-06, so this telecon will start one hour earlier than our
> last telecon.*
> The agenda follows. We won't get through all of these. These are all
> of the NB comments we have left to address. Whatever we don't get to
> in this meeting will be scheduled for the December 14th meeting.
> * P2713R0: Escaping improvements in std::format
> <https://wg21.link/p2713r0>
> o US 38-098 [format.string.escaped] Escaping for
> debugging and logging
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/515>
> o FR 005-134 [format.string.escaped] Aggressive
> escaping <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/408>
> * P2693R0: Formatting thread::id and stacktrace
> <https://wg21.link/p2693r0>
> o FR-008-011 22.14 [format] Support formatting of thread::id
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/410>
> * FR-010-133 [Bibliography] Unify references to Unicode
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/412> and
> FR-021-013 5.3p5.2 [lex.charset] Codepoint names in identifiers
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/423>
> * P2675R0: LWG3780: The Paper (format's width estimation is too
> approximate and not forward compatible) <https://wg21.link/p2675r0>
> o LWG #3780: format's width estimation is too approximate and
> not forward compatible <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3780>
> o FR-007-012 [format.string.std] codepoints with width
> 2 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/409>
> * FR-020-014 5.3 [lex.charset] Replace "translation character set"
> by "Unicode" <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/422>
> P2713R0 <https://wg21.link/p2713r0> (Escaping improvements in
> std::format) implements the SG16 proposed resolutions for US 38-098
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/515> (see the 2022-10-19
> SG16 meeting summary
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#october-19th-2022>) and
> FR 005-134 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/408> (see the
> 2022-11-02 SG16 meeting summary
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#november-2nd-2022>).
> We'll review the wording and then poll forwarding to LEWG as the
> resolution of the two NB comments.
> Candidate Poll 1: P2713R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of US 38-098 and FR 005-134 [amended to ...].
> P2693R0 <https://wg21.link/p2693r0> (Formatting thread::id and
> stacktrace) is intended to resolve FR-008-011
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/410>. I did not
> initially tag this NB comment as needing SG16 review, but Bryce
> requested that SG16 take a look, specifically with regard to narrow vs
> wide formatting. Bryce has indicated this paper will need to be
> approved soon in order for it to appear in the electronic polling that
> will be conducted in January.
> Candidate Poll 2: P2693R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of FR-008-011 [amended to ...].
> FR-010-133 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/412> and
> FR-021-013 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/423> were
> discussed during the 2022-11-02 SG16 meeting
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings#november-2nd-2022> and
> concluded with a recommendation to discuss with the project editor the
> possibility of preferring the Unicode Standard over ISO/IEC 10646
> within the C++ standard. The project editor approved this direction
> and we can now move forward with drafting wording changes. This will
> require a paper produced in short order if it is to be accepted for C++23.
> P2675R0 <https://wg21.link/p2675r0> (LWG3780: The Paper (format's
> width estimation is too approximate and not forward compatible)) is
> intended to resolve LWG #3780
> <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3780> and FR-007-012
> <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/409>. It seeks to
> replace the explicit list of code point ranges in
> [format.string.std]p12 <https://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.std#12>
> with wording that derives substantially the same set of code points
> using Unicode database properties.
> Candidate Poll 3.1: P2675R0: Forward to LEWG as the recommended
> resolution of FR-007-012 [amended to ...].
> Candidate Poll 3.2: P2675R0: Forward to LEWG for C++26 [amended to
> ...].
> Candidate Poll 3.3: Recommend to LEWG that FR-007-012 be rejected.
> FR-020-014 <https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/422> raises
> concerns that were discussed as part of the reviews of P2314
> <https://wg21.link/p2314> and P2297 <https://wg21.link/p2297> during
> the 2021-03-24 SG16 meeting
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/blob/master/README-2021.md#march-24th-2021>.
> The comment does not appear to present new information. If we choose
> to accept, a paper will need to be quickly produced.
> Candidate poll 4.1: Recommend to CWG that FR-020-014 be accepted.
> Candidate poll 4.2: Recommend to CWG that FR-020-014 be rejected.
> Tom.

Received on 2022-11-29 21:19:38