Re: Raw string literals in Emacs lisp.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > I don't understand the reason why this should be a deal-killer for Emacs
 > but not for XEmacs.

XEmacs is stuck with it (backward compatibility with user code, as in
practice a lot of users are dependent on 21.5 features that we've
refused to backport, we can't really get away with saying "you knew it
was a beta").  If there's a better alternative (which I'm not sure
there is), Emacs has no backwards compatibility problem, and no XEmacs
compatibility problem either.

 > Is XEmacs going to run into the same problems when ingesting some of
 > Emacs' highlighting/parsing stuff?

Technically, yes.  I don't expect to see a lot of real-world code that
uses rawstrings that end in "\", though, so we can just document this
wart (or document that #r rawstrings that end in "\" have undefined
behavior).  But why should Emacs put up with such a wart?