Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I understand what you are saying, but still there is a difference
  > between

  >    (concat foo bar)

  > and

  >    (concat foo "what we call a literal string")

I don't see a deep conceptual difference between them
The secomd uses a constant where the first uses a variable.
That is a difference in detail, but not a deep difference.
At least, I don't see a deep difference.

  > And in fact, the difference is not only visual, because the
  > byte-compiler is allowed to treat such "literal" strings specially in
  > some situations.

I am not entirely sure what that refers to; I am sort-of guessing.
The thing it is treating specially is a string in the expression being
compiled, if I understand what you mean.

This discussion is not about the facts of what happens, if I understand.
It's about the way to conceptualize them.

  > Another reason is that many (most?) readers understand "literal
  > string" in the sense of the above example, so it is a convenient way
  > of making sure the reader understands what is being discussed.

Yes and no.  Readers who know other languages will get an immediate
understanding from "literal string".  But that understanding is not
exactly the right understanding.  So we ought to correct it
to get to the right understanding.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)