Re: "Raw" string literals for elisp

[Stefan Monnier]

> I've long been annoyed by the number of backslashes needed when using
> string literals in elisp for certain things (regexes, UNC paths, etc),

I most other discussions around this in the past, regexps were the only
significant cases.  I don't know what you have in mind behind the
"etc.", but as for UNC: how often od you use them in ELisp and do you
really need backslashes there (I thought slashes work almost as well in
most of Windows)?

And AFAIC adding raw strings just to halve the number of backslashes in
regexps seems both too much and too little: you'd likely prefer a new
regexp syntax which doesn't require backslashes for grouping
and alternation.


        Stefan "not a big fan of raw strings in ELisp"