Re: "Raw" string literals for elisp

[tomas]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 10:31:26AM -0400, Anna Glasgall wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-09-08 at 09:10 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

[...]

> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I would be _thrilled_ to have that, but that seemed like it'd be even
> _more_ work than this is already ballooning into [...]

I just think these are two separate dimensions which happen to align
in the "regexp and backslash" case. Fixing each of those has its own
ergonomic potential.

I for one would be very thrilled with raw strings.

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

One of those rare cases I tend to disagree with Stefan. Which always
feels funny, because he's most of the time right ;-)

Cheers
 - t

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature