That might be the case, but LWG wanted changes before they were willing to merge it, hence my message.

 

Billy3

 

From: Peter Brett <pbrett@cadence.com>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:57:31 AM
To: Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <bion@microsoft.com>; Jeff Garland <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com>; SG16 <unicode@open-std.org>
Subject: RE: New P/R for LWG 3328
 

Hi all,

 

I think Jeff’s proposed wording adequately resolves the NB comment.

 

             Peter

 

From: unicode-bounces@open-std.org <unicode-bounces@open-std.org> On Behalf Of Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS)
Sent: 08 November 2019 08:56
To: Jeff Garland <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com>; SG16 <unicode@open-std.org>
Subject: [SG16-Unicode] New P/R for LWG 3328

 

EXTERNAL MAIL

Hello Jeff and SG16.

 

In LWG today there were 4 concerns raised:

  1. Historic => historical
  2. Missing :: in the u8path reference
  3. ISO rules forbid ‘should’ in notes.
  4. 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.]

 

Billy3