We talked quite a bit about this paper in the teleconference.
I have another concern: The core language defines the
terms "execution character set" and "execution wide-character set"
The wording in the paper should use exactly these phrases, with
an appropriate cross-reference.
Given these definitions, I'm a bit concern about the name of
the member function "literal". If it wants to talk about the
execution character set, it should state so in its name.
While we can bikeshed the particulars, the paper does explain the names chosen.
The core wording is not necessarily intuitive for users.
The core wording also assumes (it doesn't really have a choice) that the execution encoding is a subset of the encoding associated to the current locale).