On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 8:02 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <
sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> My rough notes for this meeting are available on the WG21 wiki here
> <https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2025/SG16Teleconference2025-11-19>
> .
>
Thanks Tom!

> The P3695 GH issue <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2325> has
> been updated to record the two polls that were taken which included the
> forwarding poll. This proposal is now in EWG's hands and labels have been
> adjusted accordingly.
>
@Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>, is the request for the C/C++ liaison SG
to take a look part of the SG 16 consensus? Perhaps you can add the
appropriate tag to the tracking issue (assuming there is someone prepared
to present to the liaison group). I believe the sentiment in SG 16 was that
allowing UTF-8 as the encoding used with wchar_t is a bad idea; however, I
am not sure there was much expressed in terms of rationale for that
position. We may need to discuss in SG 16 again to solidify the
position/rationale and to arrange for it to be presented to the liaison
group. Additionally, we should probably make it clear that SG 16 *is
not *requesting
that the deprecations be mirrored into C.

> The P3688 GH issue <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2318> has
> been updated to note that SG16 has started discussion, but not yet
> concluded it. My intention is to continue discussion of this paper during
> the next SG16 meeting on 2025-12-10.
>
Continuing from the `ascii_is` discussion, the `is_ascii` function needs a
different rename: perhaps `ascii_is_valid`.

@Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> @Corentin
<corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>:
The unabbreviation of `isprint` ended up with `is_ascii_printable` in the
paper, instead of the `is_ascii_printing` that the C wording suggests.
Similarly, C is consistent with describing "graphic characters" and not
"graphical" characters.

-- HT