Re: Raw string literals in Emacs lisp.

[Matthew Plant <maplant2@illinois.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2153 bytes --]

> How about using a Unicode character as the marker? (prepares for stoning)
I'm on the fence about this idea. It certainly would make parsing in
reverse possible (assuming the reverse parsing functions do not operate on
char *) and easy, but it would also possibly mess up formatting. It also
might not add much convenience because frankly typing non-unicode
characters is _hard_.

 One suggestion would be to use the unicode left and right double/single
quotation marks.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:41:19 -0700 David Caldwell <david@porkrind.org>
> wrote:
>
> DC> On 7/30/14 1:28 PM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:58:37 -0700 David Caldwell <david@porkrind.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> DC> Why not, then, skip rawstrings completely and go directly to a regular
> DC> expression reader: #r// (or even just #//) instead of #r""?
> >>
> >> For shell commands, for instance, it would be convenient to have
> >> rawstrings because they often have internal backslash escapes.
>
> DC> That's precisely the point I made later in my email
>
> Sorry I didn't see it.
>
> DC> rawstrings used in shell don't want things like \n escaped, but
> DC> regexps do (otherwise you have to add "\n" literal support to the
> DC> regexp engine). There's 2 usages with competing semantics trying to
> DC> use one generic interface. I still posit that having a syntax
> DC> directly for regexps would be beneficial. And I think focusing on
> DC> regexps is more important in Emacs as it happens more than
> DC> complicated shell commands.
>
> Heredocs are generally useful and popular and would also be supported by
> this syntax.  But please don't take that as a knock against regexp
> literal support, it's just not something I have needed.
>
> DC> Sadly it sounds like a the #r// would be a no-go due to the Emacs
> DC> requirements of parsing it in reverse (I assume because '/' is a valid
> DC> lisp symbol character).
>
> I have no opinion on that, I just want a simple syntax for literal data :)
>
> How about using a Unicode character as the marker? (prepares for stoning)
>
> Ted
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2922 bytes --]