Re: Raw strings (experimental patches inside)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:

 > And here we're back at regexps.  I already agreed that they're
 > convenient for regexps, but pointed out that a better solution would be
 > to fix the regexp syntax so it doesn't backslash-escape every
 > special character.

Yeah, I know -- I pointed that out too.  That's still not a substitute
for raw strings in code.  You still need to *double*-backslash-escape,
backslash-escaping is insufficient.  It's only "better" if you have
rawstring phobia.

 > That would help not just Elisp coders but Emacs users as well and
 > would make Elisp regexps even more readable than raw strings can
 > ever hope to make them.

True, but both is better.