As usual, I'm highly resistant to use of the backtick because Markdown uses
it pervasively. Not only would this make it very annoying to embed Markdown
in strings, it can make it impossible to embed inline Rust code in Markdown
editors. Let's leave the backtick as a metasyntactic symbol.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org> wrote:
> I considered backtick as well. If that approach is used, I would suggest
> that a doubled-up backtick represent a single backtick in the string, i.e.
> `error: path ``{}' failed`. This is pretty much equivalent to just using
> r"" as the syntax, although backtick may be a slightly nicer syntax for it.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Alex Crichton <a...@crichton.co> wrote:
>
> >> Of the 3, Lua's is probably the best, although it's a bit esoteric (with
> >> using [[ and nary a quote in sight).
> >
> > I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the main reason
> > behind creating a new form of literal is for things like:
> >
> > * Escapes in format! strings
> > * Possible regular expression syntax (this also may be a syntax
> extension)
> > * Type literal windows paths (escaping \ is hard)
> > * Otherwise long literals which may contain quotes (like html text)
> >
> > With those in mind, although Lua's syntax is sufficient, is it nice to
> > use? If the first thing I saw as an introduction to Rust was:
> >
> > fn main() {
> > println!([[Hello, {}!]], "world");
> > }
> >
> > I would be a little confused. Now the [[/]] aren't really necessary in
> > this case, but I'm personally unsure of how usable [[/]] would be
> > throughout the language. Raw literals in languages like C++ and Lua I
> > think aren't intended to be used that often. Instead they should be
> > used only when necessary, and you frequently don't see them in code.
> > For rust, the use cases which are the cause of this discussion are
> > actually fairly common, and I'm not sure that we'd want to see [[/]]
> > all over the place, although of course that's just my opinion :)
> >
> > Skimming back, I haven't seen a suggestion of the backtick character
> > as a delimiter. Go takes this approach, and I don't believe that in Go
> > you can have a backtick anywhere in a backtick literal, and otherwise
> > what you see is what you get. It's at least something to consider,
> > though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
