On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM Peter Brett <pbrett@cadence.com> wrote:

Hi Corentin,

 

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].
 Thanks
  • [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.
Yep, the note was not in green, fixed
 
  • 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.
Jens provided good motivation as to why they cannot be pp-token, and that was addressed in R2.
If CWG decides to move them to another section it doesn't affect the design in any way, it's a matter of wording organization.
Can we punt that point to the core?

  • Unevaluated strings do not have terminating nuls, so probably the “implicit terminating ‘\0’” wording should be removed from [over.lex].
This wording appertains to user-defined-string-literal, which are not unevaluated-string (there was a bug in that sentence though, the strikethrough text should have red string-literal, funny we didn't notice
 
  • [cpp.pragma.op] looks good to me.

 

Best wishes,

 

              Peter

 

From: SG16 <sg16-bounces@lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Corentin via SG16
Sent: 17 November 2021 21:36
To: SG16 <sg16@lists.isocpp.org>
Cc: Corentin <corentin.jabot@gmail.com>
Subject: [SG16] P2361R4 - Unevaluated Strings

 

EXTERNAL MAIL

Dear SG-16.

Here is a new revision of P2361 with wording fixes as requested.