My rough notes for this meeting are available on the (✨NEW!✨) WG21 wiki
here <https://wiki.isocpp.org/2026_Telecons:SG16Teleconference2026-02-25>.

The P3412 GH issue <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2083> and
the P3951 GH issue <https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/2602>
have been updated to indicate that further review of these proposals
will continue in the next SG16 meeting.

I closed the P1819 GH issue
<https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/588> (Interpolated Literals)
since that proposal has not progressed for several years now and is
presumably superseded by the proposals now under review. Thanks to Jan
for pointing out that this issue was still open.

Tom.

On 2/22/26 11:15 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>
> SG16 will hold a meeting Wednesday, February 25th, at 19:30 UTC
> (timezone conversion
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20260225T193000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pst&p3=tz_mst&p4=tz_cst&p5=tz_est&p6=tz_cet>).
>
> The agenda is:
>
> * P3412R3: String interpolation <https://wg21.link/p3412r3>.
> * P3951R0: String Interpolation with Template Strings
> <https://wg21.link/p3951r0>.
>
> SG16 previously reviewed *P3412R1 <https://wg21.link/p3412r1>* during
> the 2025-02-26 SG16 meeting
> <https://wiki.isocpp.org/2025_Telecons:SG16Teleconference2025-02-26>.
> Concerns raised then included interaction with the preprocessor, the
> phases of translation, handling of escape sequences, standalone
> usability, and integration with std::format(). Bengt will present a
> brief overview of the proposal and the updates in the new revisions
> intended to address prior SG16 review feedback.
>
> *P3951R0* is a new paper courtesy of Barry that offers an alternative
> perspective on string interpolation that makes different tradeoffs
> relative to P3412R3.
>
> Please try to set aside time to read both of these papers before the
> meeting as there are many details to consider. Spend some time
> considering possible future use cases (from an SG16 perspective) and
> the ability for each design to evolve to satisfy them.
>
> I don't expect discussion on these papers to conclude at this meeting.
> Plan for 30 minutes of presentation and clarifying questions for each
> paper. We'll then proceed with general discussion. Ideally, discussion
> would lead authors towards a unified/merged design or a determination
> that one proposal or the other is objectively better suited to desired
> and anticipated uses. If consensus for a single design fails to
> emerge, then we'll focus on understanding the points of contention
> with a goal of ensuring LEWG is well informed of the relevant tradeoffs.
>
> Tom.
>
>
>