User talk:Xmcgcg

On the character sets
I believe my edit is OK even if P2314R4 is not a DR.

The behavioral changes are described in translation phases which is full of rev-boxes currently. And I don't think we should describe same character sets twice in a page. Fruderica (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2022 (PDT)
 * The charsets before C++23 are now collapsed at the bottom. See this page for an example: the old semantics of 'inheriting constructor' have been replaced by a DR, but there is still a collapsed section describing it. Xmcgcg
 * There is still duplication. I think the "historically known as" I wrote is sufficient to descibe the old terminology. Note that "the charsets before C++23" and "the charsets since C++23" are almost the same things, except that
 * the term translation character set based on UCS scalar values is newly introduced, and
 * the term extended source character set (seemly never properly defined) is removed by P2314R4,
 * and they are generally not equivalent. Fruderica (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (PDT)
 * I get your point, but for me it still does not justify the removal of the old charsets, and the related changes in other pages. In my opinion, 'XXX is equivalent to YYY in an older C++ standard version' should be avoided in the descriptions (OK to note it in the "Notes" section) because this is an indirection across different versions. Having these revboxes there is the simplest way to maintain accuracy, you can add a footnote there to state the equivalence if you wish. Xmcgcg
 * I think I've never attempted to remove the "old" charsets. Currently there are just old and new style tables and terms representing the same charsets (except for the translation character set). Duplication of the tables would distract readers from knowing that the tables are essentially unchanged, because the UCS scalar values are exposition-only for non-UTF encodings. I think the duplication would result in inaccuracy of comprehending the changes in P2314R4, which might violate the accuracy-maintaining intent. Fruderica (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2022 (PDT)

I've done what I think right again. I believe the current rev-boxes and notes are correctly representing what are changed and what are unchanged. Fruderica (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2022 (PDT)
 * I am OK with that as long as the related sections in other pages remain the same. Xmcgcg