Ah, thank you 😊
Sorry, my bad – s/Jeff/Billy/ in my e-mail. I meant that I was happy with the changed wording to address LWG concerns.
Peter
From: Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <bion@microsoft.com>
Sent: 08 November 2019 09:00
To: Peter Brett <pbrett@cadence.com>; Jeff Garland <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com>; SG16 <unicode@open-std.org>
Subject: RE: New P/R for LWG 3328
EXTERNAL MAIL
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:
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