I think CWG is well positioned to handle this. We appear to have a clear precedent from recent-ish papers including P2314R4 (Character sets and encodings) and P2558R2 (Add @, $, and ` to the basic character set) for including the glyph (for printable characters) in the definition of basic character set characters ([lex.charset]) and excluding it elsewhere (in favor of just the code point and name).Following the review of https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3657R1.pdf on Wednesday and discussion on the use of unicode code points vs glyphs, I just ran across an open Editorial issue that might be relevant to wording my paper: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues/5502 It asks to specify text that does not use even the glyphs using unicode code points. Do we have any more feedback before CWG review the paper?
I plan to submit R2 including the telecom review for Core in time for the Kona meeting, and have time to incorporate this change as I am already moving the affected words, and it would be good to consolidate all changes into one place.
The proposed resolution in GH 5502 looks good to me as is; it is consistent with recent precedent as indicated above.
Tom.
AlisdairM