Corentin, I don't understand this statement about multicharacter literals having different behavior. Yes, ordinary and wide multicharacter literals have different types. So do ordinary and wide character literals. For both kinds of multicharacter literals, the value is implementation-defined; I don't know where this claim that they are computed differently comes from.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, 00:28 Jens Maurer via Core <core@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On 30/06/2020 06.15, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
> No, especially wide multi characters that are simply not a thing, let's not make them one.
I don't follow. In the status quo working draft, we have in [lex.ccon] p5
after the note:
"The value of a wide-character literal containing multiple c-char s is implementation-defined."
I would rather it doesn't have a name, especially not one that makes it look like it behaves like multi character literals, which it doesn't (not an int, value computed differently).
As such I would like it if core would consider keeping the above sentence below the table ( same thing for what tom calls conditional characters literals - both of them).Giving names to things tends to make them feel more important or intended, which I think we should avoid in this case.
I disagree. Names are given to make things easier to refer to
and discuss. These different behaviors are clearly intended.
Giving something a name is not synonymous with endorsing it.
Tom.
Jens
_______________________________________________
Core mailing list
Core@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/core
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/core/2020/06/9487.php