I believe the problem was that the thing we were proposing to remove
because nobody used it, was actually used by some people. Removing things
used by people that did not see a deprecation phase seems wrong, and we
could indeed find specific examples of people using this.

But it's probably better to discuss somewhere when you can be present.

On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 5:21 PM Alisdair Meredith <alisdairm_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Thanks Tom.
>
> I will admit to mild confusion on the rationale for keeping the code
> conversion facets,
> unless we also want to withdraw support for adopting
> https://wg21.link/P2783 for C++26
> as well?
>
> Could I request guidance on what a replacement facility would look like,
> given the
> current facility is built to support a framework based on runtime locales?
>
> I understand that we do not want to remove something without a
> replacement, but
> we will need a whole new text framework where character encoding is
> independent
> of locale that do not have today. Mixing Unicode with runtime locales is
> a recipe for
> text corruption, with no viable error handling in our current framework.
>
> AlisdairM
>
> On Apr 23, 2025, at 11:22 PM, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Thank you to everyone that attended today.
>
> WG21 members can find the draft meeting summary with poll results at
> https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2025/SG16Teleconference2025-04-23
> .
>
> Tom.
>
>
>