> For the core language, I think we should
> simply replace "execution character set" with "literal encoding" (narrow and wide),
> because we never actually care about character sets, just about encoding
I would be very much in favor of this change. "Literal encoding" is exactly what this is and "execution character set" is just confusing. I also agree that it shouldn't be tied to locales in any way.
- VictorOn Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:22 AM Peter Brett via SG16 <email@example.com> wrote:> -----Original Message-----
> From: SG16 <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Jens Maurer via SG16
> Sent: 30 January 2021 19:26
> To: email@example.com; Hubert Tong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net>; Corentin <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [SG16] Is the concept of basic execution character sets useful?
> > Unfortunately, when that's the case (and I agree that's the case more
> often than we'd like, another good example is shift-jis/win-1251), string
> literals cannot be interpreted properly by "locale specific" runtime
> > Such runtime function expects an encoding that is not the same as the
> string literal, it cannot interpret it correctly, which can lead to
> mojibake, etc.
> From a core language perspective, we have a compile-time encoding for
> (i.e. mapping of character sequences inside literals to code unit
> The actual execution environment of the program (possibly conveyed via
> might not be compatible with that. For the core language, I think we should
> simply replace "execution character set" with "literal encoding" (narrow and
> because we never actually care about character sets, just about encoding,
> i.e. a sequence of code units with which to initialize a string literal
> Maybe locale-dependent library functions just need to get a divorce from
I agree with Jens.
Although in principle a C++ interpreter could somehow make literals appear in a locale-specific encoding, all C++ implementations I'm aware of permanently fix the encoding of string literals at compilation time and before any knowledge of the run-time locale is available.
Furthermore, we want C++ compilers processing a particular corpus of source code to produce the same executable no matter whether the compiler is being run in France, Germany, China or the USA. Locale can -- should -- obviously affect compiler diagnostics, etc., but these are already implementation-defined and have no impact on the *effect* of processing the program.
I think that it is best to keep all knowledge of locale-dependence in the library. I like the idea of replacing "execution character set" with "literal encoding" everywhere in the core language.
SG16 mailing list