That might be the case, but LWG wanted changes before they were willing to merge it, hence my message.
From: Peter Brett <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:57:31 AM
To: Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Jeff Garland <email@example.com>; SG16 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: New P/R for LWG 3328
I think Jeff’s proposed wording adequately resolves the NB comment.
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Behalf Of Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS)
Sent: 08 November 2019 08:56
To: Jeff Garland <email@example.com>; SG16 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [SG16-Unicode] New P/R for LWG 3328
Hello Jeff and SG16.
In LWG today there were 4 concerns raised:
- Historic => historical
- Missing :: in the u8path reference
- ISO rules forbid ‘should’ in notes.
- The ‘should in new code’ form is somewhat ‘preachy’ and we should say why.
To those ends, how about this:
[Note: The example above is representative of a
historical use of filesystem::u8path. Passing a std::u8string to path’s constructor is preferred for an indication of UTF-8 encoding more consistent with path’s handling of other encodings. -- end note.]