From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 14:14:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20210227.031857.1351840144740816188.conao3@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31966"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Matt Armstrong , Naoya Yamashita , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 02 15:16:04 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lH5oh-0008Cp-QN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:16:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44506 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lH5og-0000Q0-QS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:16:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lH5nJ-0007v8-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:14:37 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:40635 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lH5nH-0007dv-DC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:14:37 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 43547 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Mar 2021 14:14:32 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15a8d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.90.141]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:14:32 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11784 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Mar 2021 14:14:32 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:265829 Archived-At: Hello, Dmitry On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 14:01:10 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 02.03.2021 07:59, Matt Armstrong wrote: > > C++ has probably the most flexible "gold standard" raw string literals. > > As Alan I think rightly points out, this makes the language and all > > tools that process the language more complex. This is a high cost, so > > the feature should deliver some real value. > > For those that don't know, C++'s raw string literals can be as imple as > > this for the string "raw-content": > > R"(raw-content)" > > But if the content itself contains the character sequence )" then the > > programmer can specify any delimiter they want: > > R"DELIMITER(raw-content)"more-raw-content)DELIMITER" > Sounds very similar to Ruby's heredocs or "Percent Strings" (and both of > those have their own extra complexity because of allowed nesting). > Both are supported by ruby-mode with syntax-propertize-function without > too much trouble. I've just tried this out, looking up some ruby syntax on Wikipedia. Adapting its example, start out with this in ruby-mode: ######################################################################### a = <<-BLOCK This is a double-quoted string BLCK BLOCK b ######################################################################### Now everything down to and including the second BLOCK has string face. This seems correct. Delete the O from the first BLOCK, so that the string is now terminated by BLCK. The second BLOCK still has string face, although it is no longer in the string. Is this a bug? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).