On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:39 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

I attached a draft R1 with changes I had previously worked on. I briefly looked at it and I don't think I left it in a half-baked state, but it would be worth diffing it against the P0 revision with a reasonable HTML diffing tool to make sure.  The "Changes since P2071R0" section suggest I addressed the issues raised in Prague.

The todo list I have includes:

• Add discussion regarding the use of \N{...} in identifiers.
• Add a proposal option to allow use of \N{...} in identifiers.
• Rebase wording on the current WD; particularly due to the adoption of P2029.
  
• Implement the proposal.
  

Richard Smith had requested that \N{...} be allowed in identifiers for consistency with \u and \U.  We should, of course, just acknowledge that Richard is always right and do that :)

I do, however, question its usefulness :)

As do I, but, hey, consistency is good :)

It doesn't cost much in terms of wording/implementation.

I could probably whipped a clang prototype fairly rapidly if that's useful

I think by some heroics we will get Jens paper approved at october's plenary and can rebase the wording on top of it

then

Insert "make it so" meme.

Tom.

 

Wording changes may additionally be needed for P2314.  Maybe for one or more of Corentin's recent papers as well.

Tom.

On 9/15/21 3:21 PM, Steve Downey wrote:

https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/798#issuecomment-585750666 has notes from JF

EWG Prague Thursday afternoon:

We’re interested in supporting named universal character escapes.

SF	F	N	A	SA
14	5	0	0	0

This should further support aliases.

SF	F	N	A	SA
18	2	1	0	0

It should further be case insensitive.

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	6	6	9	2

It should further support UAX44-LM2 with arbitrary spaces and dashes.

SF	F	N	A	SA
1	4	5	8	5

The paper is not tentatively ready yet. We want to see the updated paper before marking it as tentatively ready.

I missed Prague, but this might be enough, if you don't have any more detailed notes. I can check the wiki as well. 

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:46 PM Tom Honermann <tom@honermann.net> wrote:

On 9/15/21 2:31 PM, Steve Downey wrote:
> If I am reading the github correctly, EWG would like to see some
> revision before picking it up again. Is there something I can
> help with? This looks like it's really close and desired and quite
> possible for 23?

Yes. I recall there not being much to do, but I need to find my list of
what that is. I would very much appreciate the help. I'll hunt down that
list and try to get it to you later today or tomorrow.

Tom.