On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:46 AM Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The [lex.string], the "*line-break*" in a raw string literal wording
>>>> could be more explicit about scanning for line-breaks (sequences matching a
>>>> *line-break* is not a *line-break* "for free"; it is a *line-break*
>>>> if, for example, the grammar asks for a *line-break*).
>>>> This can be done by adding *line-break* under the *r-char* grammar and
>>>> adjusting the other *r-char* case with the formula from
>>>> *single-line-comment-elem*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure I agree with all of that, but I do agree that there isn't
>>> no line-break as such in a raw string literals.
>>> I've replaced it with " A sequence of characters that matches the
>>> grammar of line-break ..."
>>>
>>
>> That approach is fine. Still need to watch out for the CRLF versus CR +
>> LF ambiguity.
>>
>
> I added "A whitespace is the longest sequence of characters that could
> constitute a whitespace." in [lex.whitespace]. I believe this is true for
> all sort of whitespaces, including comments and
> it takes care of both line-breaks and comments
>

It takes care of *line-break*s that are whitespace. It does not take care
of *line-break* matching that bypasses the *whitespace* grammar term (like
in raw strings). The second copy of the sentence with *link-break* in place
of *whitespace* would work.