On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 6:23 PM Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast@gmail.com> wrote: 
The assumed prerequisite paper is P2314 and not P2223? I see "translation character set" present in "unchanged context" in the wording.

Indeed, I got the numbers wrong. fixed.
 

For the requirement to provide a mechanism, this might be an improvement:
An implementation shall provide a mechanism to specify the result of the determination that is independent of the content of the source file.

For the note, I think this is an improvement that would reduce the time spent in CWG:
A command line option that specifies the encoding scheme to use as the result of the determination is such a mechanism.

Ok, I'll use that. Thanks.
 

In the third paragraph of phase 1:
[ ... ], then the physical source file shall be a well-formed UTF-8 sequence.
Each UCS scalar value encoded in the UTF-8 sequence is mapped to the corresponding element of the translation character set.

I'm not sure what to make of the situation around end-of-line indicators yet. P2348, "Whitespaces Wording Revamp", is also floating in the mix.

Indeed. P2348 is motivated by P2295.
I believe it's not dramatic to leave things partially hanging (there can be line feed in utf-8 files and we do say that line feed is new-line in P2314), but I hope we will talk about P2348 at some point.

Thanks, 
Corentin

-- HT

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 4:27 AM Corentin Jabot via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hello,
We added a note to explicitly say that we expect implementation to provide a command line option.
I am sure that core will want to tweak that note, but hopefully it leaves little room for interpretation

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 12:12 AM Tom Honermann via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, July 14th at 19:30 UTC (timezone conversion).

The agenda is:

The agenda is a result of discussion between Peter and I; we feel that further information is needed to improve consensus for P2093R6 and no such information has appeared since the last telecon.  We'll therefore take a break from that paper to allow for progress on other papers.

We've had several discussions regarding the wording for P2295.  Please review the latest wording in P2295R4 and, if objections (not just desired tweajs) remain, reply to this email to state them ahead of the meeting.  My intention is to poll forwarding this paper with the expectation that core will further tweak the wording pending EWG acceptance.  The SG16 obligation is to ensure that the intent of the paper is clear and that the proposed wording reasonably reflects it; I don't want to hold this paper up further unless it is felt that the wording misrepresents the intent.

Based on our prior discussions of P2093R6, I'm anticipating considerable discussion will be needed for LWG 3565.  It has been moved to the end of the agenda in hopes that we'll be able to dispense with the other papers first and then spend the remaining time on it.

Tom.

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