FR-021-013 5.3p5.2 [lex.charset] Codepoint names in identifiers

[wg21bot]

The XID_Start and XID_Continue properties that form the identifier grammar are extracted from Unicode. But character names are extracted from ISO 10646.
Because Unicode and ISO 10646 do not have the same release schedule, not all characters valid in identifiers can be spelled with the \N{} syntax.
This inconsistency could be avoided by referring to Unicode directly in the specification of the \N{} escape sequences.

Please refer to Unicode consistently for all Unicode properties, using a consistent set of references pertaining to the same version of Unicode.

[tahonermann]

SG16 reviewed this issue along with FR-010-133 during its 2022-11-02 telecon.

The problem tracked by this issue is a specific consequence of the problem described by FR-010-133. Resolving FR-010-133 such that the standard no longer directly or indirectly references multiple versions of the Unicode Standard will resolve this issue. See the comments in FR-010-133 for more details.

I'm going to retain the SG16 label for now. This issue should be considered blocked on FR-010-133.

[tahonermann]

P2736R0 seeks to address this issue (as well as FR-010-133).

[tahonermann]

SG16 discussed a draft of P2736R0 during its 2022-12-14 telecon. No polls were taken, discussion will continue at the next SG16 telecon scheduled for 2023-01-11. I'm retaining the SG16 label for now.

[tahonermann]

SG16 completed its review of a draft of P2736R1 during its 2023-01-25 telecon. The following poll was taken:

• Poll 1.2: Forward P2736R1, amended as discussed, to CWG and LWG as the recommended resolution of NB comments FR-010-133 and FR-021-013.
  • Attendees: 10 (2 abstentions)

    SF	F	N	A	SA
    7	2	0	0	0

  • Unanimous consent.

I'm removing the SG16 label; this NB comment is ready for CWG review.

[jensmaurer]

Adding LWG per the poll in SG16.

[tahonermann]

The SG16 poll is also recorded in the issue for P2736 which is the paper that SG16 actually polled forwarding (and does address CWG and LWG). I think the particular NB comment this issue tracks is only relevant for CWG though.

[jensmaurer]

Except that LWG won't review a paper in Issaquah (with priority) unless it clearly has relevance for an NB comment. But I notice that #412 is also assigned to LWG, so we're fine.

[JeffGarland]

LWG is planning to look at #412 in our pre-Issaquah telecom on 2023-02-01

[jensmaurer]

Accepted.