I did a grep on the latest xemacs code base I could find, funnily enough, almost half of the instances of #r appeared in test cases. Not in facilitating them I might add, they were the test case. All of the non-test cases were regexps.<div>
<br></div><div>Although this data is convincing in some respects, I would like to note that xemacs is dead. The download off their main page did not even have any raw string literals. <br><div><br></div><div>I will still content that it is a useful feature to have. The cost of adding it (very minimal) are is to the benefit of having it. And why not? Emacs is also a language, unfortunately. We could all switch to guile and be done with it, but it appears the consensus is that elisp is finely tuned to do text processing. Elisp is a text processing language, and it should have as many features to facilitate in the processing of text as possible, this included.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Matt</div><div><br>On Friday, July 25, 2014, chad &lt;<a href="mailto:yandros@gmail.com">yandros@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It might be helpful to canvas the use of #r&quot;string&quot; in [S]XEmacs<br>
and see if anything especially nifty shows up. I think Stefan&#39;s<br>
reservations mostly come from a feeling that the obvious problem<br>
has a better solution elsewhere, but they have some actual experience<br>
which might shed a different light on the topic.<br>
<br>
~Chad<br>
</blockquote></div></div>