On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:52 PM William M. (Mike) Miller <william.m.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:01 AM Corentin <corentin.jabot@gmail.com> wrote:
New draft, using that wording, except that I'm not touching the end of line indicators, so that we can do that in P2348

A couple of comments:

First, I really do not like the extremely repetitive use of the term "physical source file". As I understand it, "physical" is used to distinguish the input file from the logical source file resulting from the Phase 1 mapping. I'd be happy with replacing the term "physical source file" with "input file" or any other term that maintains the distinction between pre- and post-Phase-1 source.

Agreed, I would really want us to get consensus on that.
 
(A related point is the use of "physical" in Phase 2 to describe lines. I think that's incorrect, since we're talking about backslashes and new-lines, which are post-mapping characters and might be different characters or, in the case of a new-line, not present at all in the physical source file. I think it's fine to just talk about "source" in Phase 2 and drop "physical" altogether.)

My second comment regards new-line characters and end-of-line indicators. As I understand it, there are two real-world scenarios the existing wording is intended to cover: cases where different characters or sequences (CR, CRLF) are used instead of new-lines, and record-oriented files where there is no character at the end of a line. The word "introducing" is appropriate for the latter case, but it seems incongruous for the former. Could we replace that phrase with "representing end-of-line indicators as new-line characters"?

This is preexisting and better addressed when we process P2348 Whitespaces Wording Revamp which addresses that point.