On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org> wrote: > One feature common to many programming languages that Rust lacks is "raw" > string literals.
This is one of those things where I feel almost all languages get wrong, and probably mostly for historical reasons. IMO there should *only* be raw string literals on the syntax level. It seems extremely weird to me that languages have this second-level language that gets interpreted within a literal. That kind of higher level processing should be part of a formatting library (e.g. a macro like fmt), rather than an embedded language inside the literal syntax. So, I think string literals should contain exactly what they contain in their source form, without any additional processing. If you want to express characters that are inconvenient to type, you can use control sequences and a (standard) formatting library to produce them. -- Sebastian Sylvan
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
