On 10/25/25 12:27 PM, Alisdair Meredith via SG16 wrote:
> Following the review ofhttps://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3657R1.pdf on Wednesday and discussion
> on the use of unicode code points vs glyphs, I just ran across an open Editorial issue that might be
> relevant to wording my paper:
> https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues/5502
>
> It asks to specify text that does not use even the glyphs using unicode code points.
>
> Do we have any more feedback before CWG review the paper?
I think CWG is well positioned to handle this. We appear to have a clear
precedent from recent-ish papers including P2314R4 (Character sets and
encodings) <https://wg21.link/p2314r4> and P2558R2 (Add @, $, and ` to
the basic character set) <https://wg21.link/p2558r2> for including the
glyph (for printable characters) in the definition of basic character
set characters ([lex.charset] <https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.charset>) and
excluding it elsewhere (in favor of just the code point and name).
> I plan to submit R2 including the telecom review for Core in time for the Kona meeting, and have
> time to incorporate this change as I am already moving the affected words, and it would be
> good to consolidate all changes into one place.

The proposed resolution in GH 5502
<https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues/5502> looks good to me as is;
it is consistent with recent precedent as indicated above.

Tom.

>
> AlisdairM