re: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101
(adding SG16)
We'll need to resolve the objection to "valid" in the comments for the PR.
Suggested alternatives discussed:
"If we need to keep a terminology, "admissible", "conforming", "supported",
or variations on that theme do seem like good solutions."
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101#issuecomment-1307774280

I'd have a weak preference for "conforming" and agree that "valid" is not
the right choice.



On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:12 PM Hubert Tong via Edit <edit_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:22 PM Alisdair Meredith via Edit <
> edit_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> How do we feel about https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101 for
>> C++26?
>>
>
> I have no objection.
>
> -- HT
>
>
>>
>> I would like to see this land to resolve NB US 63-115, which has
>> currently been deemed no consensus
>> for change as the resolution proposed in the comment placed a core
>> lanugaugae dependency on a
>> library clause.
>>
>> I have since been asked to re-order the current paragraph to more clearly
>> disambiguate that
>> "of one of the execution character sets” applies to only “a locale
>> specific encoding” nd not to
>> “A literal encoding”. However, Jens’s PR above does a better job than a
>> minor re-ordering of
>> these phrases.
>>
>> Should we send this back to SG16 as an alternative resolution for the NB
>> comment above?
>>
>> AlisdairM
>> _______________________________________________
>> Edit mailing list
>> Edit_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/edit
>> Searchable archives: http://lists.isocpp.org/edit/2025/12/index.php
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Edit mailing list
> Edit_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/edit
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/edit/2025/12/1197.php
>