This is your friendly reminder that this meeting is taking place tomorrow.

Thank you to Corentin for his recent reminder of P2342 (For a Few
Punctuators More) <https://wg21.link/p2342>. If possible, please read
the section on $ as it provides excellent historical context that is
relevant for the discussion of WG14 N3145.

Also thank you to Mark for providing a proposed resolution for LWG 3944
<https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2023/07/3915.php>. Please try to review
that for tomorrow as well.

Tom.

On 7/22/23 9:15 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>
> SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, July 26th, at 19:30 UTC
> (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20230726T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pt&p3=tz_mt&p4=tz_ct&p5=tz_et&p6=tz_cest>).
>
> The agenda follows.
>
> * WG14 N3145: $ in Identifiers v2
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3145.pdf>:
> o Determine whether a corresponding proposal for WG21 is desired.
> * P2811R7: Contract-Violation Handlers <https://wg21.link/p2811r7>:
> o Discuss character encoding considerations for the
> std::contracts::contract_violation::comment() member function.
> * LWG 3944: Formatters converting sequences of char to sequences of
> wchar_t <https://wg21.link/lwg3944>:
> o Continue review pending a proposed resolution or related paper.
>
> Hubert suggested in a post to the SG16 mailing list
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/sg16/2023/07/3891.php> that SG16 consider
> whether similar changes to those adopted for C2x via WG14 N3145
> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3145.pdf> to allow
> $ in identifiers as a sanctioned implementation-defined allowance are
> desirable. All major C++ implementations currently allow $ in
> identifiers by default with no warning, even with -Wall;
> https://godbolt.org/z/M154z7bGf. Some implementations issue a warning
> in their pedantic modes. All implementations provide an option to
> prohibit $ in identifiers. We'll discuss the impact (or lack thereof)
> to implementations regarding an implementation-defined allowance vs a
> conforming extension.
>
> SG21 has been making good progress on a contracts feature for C++26
> and recently approved P2811R7 <https://wg21.link/p2811r7>. When a
> contract violation occurs, a violation handler is invoked and passed a
> std::contracts::contract_violation object whose comment() member
> function is expected to reflect portions of the source code. Per
> proposal 1.3 ("The comment property") in section 4.1 ("An Extensible
> contract_violation Type"), the intent is that the function return text
> encoded in the literal encoding. The proposed wording simply states
> that the function returns implementation-defined text. We'll discuss
> whether to recommend any changes.
>
> LWG 3944 <https://wg21.link/lwg3944> was discussed during the
> 2023-07-12 SG16 meeting
> <https://github.com/sg16-unicode/sg16-meetings/#june-7th-2023> (that
> link will work soon) and is pending a proposed resolution or paper. If
> an update is provided and time permits, we'll continue discussion.
>
> Tom.
>
>