Hi, I've attached a patch fixing up this test. The difference occurred with:
rf"""\x12 S \n \u1234 \U00010348 \N{Plus-Minus Sign}"""
(and equivalent variants: the same string but starting with fr""", fr''',
rf''').

The patch treats "{Plus-Minus Sign}" as an embedded expression within an
f-string, causing it to be fontified differently (previously it was
fontified the same as the rest of the string).  This is invalid syntax
since "Plus-Minus Sign" is not a valid expression, so I think it's the
correct behaviour since it emphasises that "{Plus-Minus Sign}" will be
treated as an embedded expression even though it's invalid.

I hope that makes sense, thanks, Laurence

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 8:13 PM Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:

> Laurence Warne <laurencewarne@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi, I've attached a patch which looks good to me locally using the above
> examples
> > and others.
> >
> > In addition to the above, mixed capitalizations are also covered:
> >
> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#string-and-bytes-literals
> .
>
> I think your patch makes sense, but it leads to failures in:
>
> 1 unexpected results:
>    FAILED  python-font-lock-escape-sequence-multiline-string
>
> Could you have a look at that and possibly adjust the test too (if it's
> the test that's wrong here)?
>
>