Also similarly, why not use the string "dot" as a fallback for U+22C5 "DOT
OPERATOR"?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 5:47 PM Eddie Nolan <eddiejnolan_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > 3. Are the portable alternatives fine (especially "%o" might be
> controversial above)?
>
> What would be an alternative if we didn't like "%o"? I'm not seeing one.
>
> I'd suggest just "permille." I think "1000 permille" is a lot less
> potentially ambiguous or confusing than "1000%o". Similarly, if
> hypothetically the percent sign itself weren't available, I'd rather read
> "100 percent" or "100 pct" than "100o/o".
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 5:21 PM Jens Maurer via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/2024 21.59, Mateusz Pusz via SG16 wrote:
>> > Hi SG16 :-)
>> >
>> > At the last meeting about units, I said that we do not have to decide
>> on any specific Unicode symbols for now, as the systems of units are the
>> subject of the next papers. It turns out I was wrong :-(
>> >
>> > We need a few Unicode characters for the first proposal. Those are:
>>
>> Could you give an indication of the respective use-case?
>>
>> > Name Symbol C++ code Portable alternative
>> > Superscript Zero ⁰ u8"\u2070" "0"
>> > Superscript One ¹ u8"\u00b9" "1"
>> > Superscript Two ² u8"\u00b2" "2"
>> > Superscript Three ³ u8"\u00b3" "3"
>> > Superscript Four ⁴ u8"\u2074" "4"
>> > Superscript Five ⁵ u8"\u2075" "5"
>> > Superscript Six ⁶ u8"\u2076" "6"
>> > Superscript Seven ⁷ u8"\u2077" "7"
>> > Superscript Eight ⁸ u8"\u2078" "8"
>> > Superscript Nine ⁹ u8"\u2079" "9"
>> > Superscript Minus ⁻ u8"\u207b" "-"
>> > Multiplication Sign × u8"\u00d7" "x"
>> > Mathematical Italic Small Pi 𝜋 u8"\U0001D70B" "pi"
>> > Per Mille Sign ‰ u8"\u2030" "%o"
>> > Dot Operator ⋅ u8"\u22C5" <none>*
>> >
>> >
>> > * This option is valid only for UTF-8 encoding. Otherwise, we propose
>> to throw an exception during format string processing.
>>
>> Could you give a sample std::format invocation where this would happen?
>> In particular, I'm opposed to throwing an exception if the value of a
>> format argument (not the format string) happens to be a little off.
>>
>> > 2. Is the C++ spelling correct? Should we spell them in the spec with
>> '\u', '\U', or maybe some other way?
>>
>> That depends on where they appear. If they appear in strings, something
>> like "\uXXXX"
>> (with quotation marks, with optional encoding-prefix) seems appropriate.
>>
>> If they appear in source code, see below.
>>
>> > 3. Are the portable alternatives fine (especially "%o" might be
>> controversial above)?
>>
>> What would be an alternative if we didn't like "%o"? I'm not seeing one.
>>
>> > 4. Is there a better way to spell `inline constexpr auto 𝜋 = pi;` to
>> be explicit about the specific Unicode symbol used for the identifier?
>>
>> So, this is an identifier, not a string literal. I think we shouldn't
>> rely
>> on glyphs for anything outside of ASCII for unique character
>> identification;
>> we shouldn't require consumers of the standard to be able to read
>> non-Latin
>> scripts (even if we're talking about math symbols).
>> So maybe
>>
>> inline constexpr auto \u03c0 = pi; // U+03C0 GREEK SMALL LETTER PI
>>
>> or, actually showing the glyph:
>>
>> inline constexpr auto π /* U+03C0 GREEK SMALL LETTER PI */ = pi;
>>
>> Jens
>> --
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>>
>