Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  matt@rfc20.org,  conao3@gmail.com,
>   monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:02 -0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Yes, see above (and in general, see the "Mutability" node in the ELisp
> > manual).
> 
> > I'm still not sure I understand how to correct that.  If using "string
> > constant" is what is needed, then it's easy to switch to that
> > terminology throughout.  But I'm not yet sure this is the way.
> 
> I don't think that "constant" is the right word to use. After all, the
> string that you get from a string literal can be modified just like a
> string from any other source.

That's a separate issue, and that horse has been beaten to death
already, with the current ELisp manual's text that talks of
"immutable" objects being the best result we could come up with that
leaves everybody with at least a partial satisfaction.  Please let's
not start that discussion again.

Let's agree that the word "constant" in the context of this discussion
is a purely syntactic term, it has nothing to do with the object's
mutability.