Re: Is there any way to have a string literal that is read "raw"

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>]

Richard M. Stallman wrote:

>    >Nothing important in the design of Emacs should be designed for the
>    >sake of Windows, because that would be giving Windows influence it
>    >should not have.
>    >
>    There are many roads to the goal. How can one be sure which step is the 
>    best without considering advantages and drawbacks with an open mind?
>
>The question is not whether to be open to consider advantages and
>drawbacks.  The question is which of them matter.
>
>What I've told you is that advantages only for Windows users are not
>important advantages for the GNU Project.  Our goal is to replace
>Windows, not to enhance it, and we must not allow ourselves to be
>distracted from this goal for the convenience of Windows users.
>
Yes, I agree to that, but maybe that does not mean that "advantages only 
for Windows users" are unimportant and does not contribute to GNU? For 
example I have found myself spending a lot of time trying to overcome 
different problems I meet in Emacs as a Windows users. There might be 
many possible contributors on Windows that does the same. Would it not 
be an advantage for GNU if we could spend more of our power actually 
contributing to the overall project?

We may perhaps also contribute with our knowledge of Windows. We can 
tell what we think are good on Windows and what we lack in Emacs and 
GNU/Linux. There are plenty of things that I believe could benefit from 
studying Windows solutions. Do you not think that this could speed up 
the development? Is not this a viable strategy?