Please check:
-
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3045r3.html#unit-formatting
-
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3045r3.html#symbols-of-derived-units
and let me know if that is OK for you.

śr., 23 paź 2024 o 23:49 Eddie Nolan via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> 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
>>>
>> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>