Thank you for this revision. I have cross-referenced with previous feedback received on the list.
- Please replace “translation set” with “translation character set” to match the wording used in P2314R2’s [lex.phases].
- [dcl.asm] looks good to me
- Are you sure that the added/removed text highlighting is correct in [dcl.link]? There seem to be changes w.r.t. the current working draft that aren’t in blue/red.
- Thank you for the note in [cpp.line].
- Did you consider Jens’ suggestion to move the introduction of
unevaluated-string from [lex] to [dcl.pre]? I thing he provided a good rationale for why an
unevaluated-string cannot be identified until phase 7.
- Unevaluated strings do not have terminating nuls, so probably the “implicit terminating ‘\0’” wording should be removed from [over.lex].
- [cpp.pragma.op] looks good to me.
From: SG16 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Behalf Of Corentin via SG16
Sent: 17 November 2021 21:36
To: SG16 <email@example.com>
Cc: Corentin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings
Here is a new revision of P2361 with wording fixes as requested.