On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 2:38 PM Tom Honermann <email@example.com> wrote:
On 10/8/22 5:38 AM, Corentin Jabot wrote:
At the risk of spoiling
E.2.1 and E.5 (https://eel.is/c++draft/uaxid) are a repeat of [lex.name]Everything else in [uaxid] is a list of things C++ does not conform to, mostly because none of these things would apply one way or another.
A note (or other form of mention) in [lex.name] stating "C++ conforms to UAX31 by meeting the requirements R1 'Default Identifiers' and R4 'Equivalent Normalized Identifiers'. Other requirements do not apply." would carry the same meaning.
Beside the maintenance burden of an annex that is not information dense, and the fact that the conformance information is more useful to have in [lex.name], as C++ adds Unicode support (for example unicode regex), having an annex per UAX/TR does not seem practical or desirable.
Note that I'm not opposed to mentioning the conformance information, quite the opposite, it's very useful information.I'm just saying an annex which is by large a list of requirements not met is less useful than having the information available where it's relevant, in a more concise form.
This seems like a tangential concern that we can address if and when an NB comment raising these concerns appears.
Personally, I find it useful to have prose that explains why a requirement does not apply.Unfortunately, we probably won't know all the NB comments in the next 2 weeks (For example, France's process runs until the 21 october)Sure, if there is a nb comment to improve [uaxid] and then one to remove it, we could treat them in order.But assuming both nb comments are made and deemed reasonable, there will be a bunch of work invested to improve something and then remove it.Not the end of the world, but also not optimal.
While that is a possibility, I would still prefer to get a head
start processing NB comments.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:31 AM Steve Downey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If there are other comments about Annex E we'll have to do work to merge them in any case. Unless it's to drop Annex E entirely, which I would be against.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 7:29 PM Steve Downey <email@example.com> wrote:
US-64 was supposed to have a matching paper, but it looks like it got folded inline. In any case https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2653R0.pdf
UAX #31 describes how languages that use or interpret patterns of characters such as
regular expressions or number formatscomputer languages, may describe that syntax with Unicode properties.
C++ does not do this as part of the language, deferring to library components for such usage of patterns. This requirement does not apply to C++.
C++ does not use the methods or properties in UAX #31 to do this. It instead uses the whitespace and syntax characters defined in [lex] to describe the white space characters and the basic source characters used to define syntactic elements other than identifiers.
Wordsmithing more than welcome.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:19 PM Corentin Jabot via SG16 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I would prefer to wait for all nb comments to be filled in. In particular, US-38 and US-64 may end up conflicting or overlapping with other NB comments.
--On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tom Honermann via SG16 <email@example.com> wrote:
SG16 will hold a telecon on Wednesday, October 12th, at 19:30 UTC (timezone conversion).
The agenda is:
- A presentation by Michael Kuperstein regarding i18n and l10n and existing practice in the industry.
- NB comment processing.
INCITS has made US NB comments available to its members. I reviewed the list and identified the following as ones that I believe SG16 should establish a position on. There are other comments that are related to papers SG16 has previously discussed, but in those cases, I believe the concerns raised do not require SG16 input.
Due to duplicated comments in the list of US comments, it is possible that the comment identifiers below will change.
The notion of an "execution character set" is no longer given prominence in the Draft standard, aside from some notes about its relationship to the concept as defined by C, and clarifying that certain character encodings are unrelated to this character set. This makes it a questionable choice for use in the definition of "multibyte character".
Change the definition of "multibyte character" to use a character encoding with a more definite specification given by the Standard.
The subject subclause describes how characters or strings are "escaped" to be formatted more suitably "for debugging or for logging".
The actual suitability for debugging or for logging depends on the needs of the application, and there is a conflict between formatting for human readability of the textual content and formatting for clarity and fidelity of encoding nuances. Indeed, for the latter, there can still be (for stateful encodings) a conflict between formatting for human visual inspection versus formatting for machine consumption of the output sequence as a C++ string/character literal.
The current design introduces extensions to the API and to the format string syntax that assume that there is one specific default that should be chosen "for debugging or for logging". The reasoning behind the chosen default and the extensibility of the current design does not appear to be sufficiently explored.
An example, for Unicode encodings, of a choice between prioritizing between human readability of the textual content and visual clarity of encoding nuances is in the treatment of characters having Unicode property Grapheme_Extend=Yes. The current design favors visual clarity of encoding nuances by outputing such characters as escape sequences.
For stateful encodings, the lack of return to the initial shift state at the end of the sequence cannot be represented using a C++ string/character literal unless if a prior shift sequence from the initial shift state is rendered via escape sequence(s). It is not clear that scanning forward is generally always an option (nor is it clear that doing so is desirable).
Narrow the purported scope and affirm the design choices of the default behavior:
Modify "logging" to "technical logging" and spell out the priorities in order in the description (this has the benefit of clearly communicating intention and providing guidance for implementation choices).
- The output is intended to be a C++ string/character literal that reproduces the encoded sequence. (This seems to be taken for granted and not made explicit in the current draft.)
- Prefer visually distinguishing between different methods of encoding "equivalent" textual content.
Make any adjustments necessary to the API or the format string syntax associated with "escaped" strings to allow for future additions for alternative escaping.
The Unicode org has clarified that the pattern whitespace and pattern syntax rules apply to the lexing and parsing of computer languages.
Replace with "UAX#31 describes how formal languages such as computer languages should describe and implement their use of whitespace and syntactically significant characters during the processes of lexing and parsing. C++ does not claim conformance with this requirement."
SG16 mailing list
SG16 mailing list