This paper touches, incidentally, wording that is of concern to SG12 regarding UB.
To ease communication/concerns, it might be worth pointing out the that UB wording
added to [lex.concat] is not new UB, but merely moving where we document the
existing UB in [lex.phases]p4.

As part of this cleanup, is the UB in [lex.phases]p2 still possible, or does the raw
remaining string reversion no longer have the ability to accidentally form a UCN as
all we are reverting is line-splicing, which implies there must be a new-line character
emdedded in any reversion, which would not enable forming a UCN?

AlisdairM

On Mar 28, 2021, at 2:15 PM, Tom Honermann via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

The summary for the SG16 meeting held March 24th, 2021 is now available.  For those that attended, please review and suggest corrections:

A decision was made to forward Jens' D2314R2: Character sets and encodings to EWG at this meeting.  Per SG16 operating procedures, this decision has tentative consensus as of now and will become the SG16 consensus one week from now pending new dissenting perspectives or other new information.  Given that the decision was unanimous (though there were abstentions), EWG has already been informed and has tentatively scheduled this paper for discussion on May 6th.

Poll: Forward D2314R2 as presented on 2021-03-24 to EWG for inclusion in C++23.

  • Attendance: 9

    SF F N A SA
    3 5 0 0 0

  • Consensus is in favor.

Tom.
--
SG16 mailing list
SG16@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16