re: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101
(adding SG16) 
We'll need to resolve the objection to "valid" in the comments for the PR. Suggested alternatives discussed:
"If we need to keep a terminology, "admissible", "conforming", "supported", or variations on that theme do seem like good solutions."
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101#issuecomment-1307774280

I'd have a weak preference for "conforming" and agree that "valid" is not the right choice.



On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:12 PM Hubert Tong via Edit <edit@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:22 PM Alisdair Meredith via Edit <edit@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
How do we feel about https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5101 for C++26?

I have no objection.

-- HT
 

I would like to see this land to resolve NB US 63-115, which has currently been deemed no consensus
for change as the resolution proposed in the comment  placed a core lanugaugae dependency on a
library clause.

I have since been asked to re-order the current paragraph to more clearly disambiguate that
"of one of the execution character sets” applies to only “a locale specific encoding” nd not to
“A literal encoding”.  However, Jens’s PR above does a better job than a minor re-ordering of
these phrases.

Should we send this back to SG16 as an alternative resolution for the NB comment above?

AlisdairM
_______________________________________________
Edit mailing list
Edit@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/edit
Searchable archives: http://lists.isocpp.org/edit/2025/12/index.php
_______________________________________________
Edit mailing list
Edit@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/edit
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/edit/2025/12/1197.php