Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:01:11 +0200
On 28/03/2021 22.56, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
> Thanks - that was exactly my thoughts, and I missed it when Corentin tried to correct me. All clear now, although is the reference to Raw string literals still useful, or more likely to lead to folks like me mid reading too quickly, and getting confused?
>
> I believe there would be no cha he of behavior if we strike the “except” that can no longer occur.
No. If we strike the "except", we give the impression that a spliced character
sequence in a raw string literal that looks like a UCN is somehow special,
and would cause undefined behavior. It doesn't.
(Note that it says "that matches the syntax". Although UCNs are never
formed in raw string literals, the phrasing could be read to actually
care for UCNs in raw string literals. Not good.)
Jens
> Thanks - that was exactly my thoughts, and I missed it when Corentin tried to correct me. All clear now, although is the reference to Raw string literals still useful, or more likely to lead to folks like me mid reading too quickly, and getting confused?
>
> I believe there would be no cha he of behavior if we strike the “except” that can no longer occur.
No. If we strike the "except", we give the impression that a spliced character
sequence in a raw string literal that looks like a UCN is somehow special,
and would cause undefined behavior. It doesn't.
(Note that it says "that matches the syntax". Although UCNs are never
formed in raw string literals, the phrasing could be read to actually
care for UCNs in raw string literals. Not good.)
Jens
Received on 2021-03-28 16:01:21