On 19/01/2021 16.49, Corentin Jabot via SG16 wrote:
> Damn, I finally see the issue.
> Terribly sorry it took this long
> Which leads me to think that the current order of operation is a better place to be in, unless we find a better mechanism
>
> I think that the status quo in terms of observable behavior pertaining to escape sequences is correct
> I don't feel so good about the idea of introducing weird wording hacks such as more abstract characters to achieve that behavior while swapping operations.

The current description doesn't work, either.

> in any case there cannot be partial code unit sequences anywhere in each string.

I don't agree. Hexadecimal escape sequences are specified to yield
code units (not code points), and one code unit might very well be
a partial sequence:

"\x82" "\x45" // maybe this is some valid UTF-8

Jens