On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:20 AM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/11/26 00:24, Hubert Tong via SG16 wrote:
>
> > I also have qualms about allowing extraction fields in raw strings
> without the involvement of the d-char-sequence.
> > In particular, I am against having the "outer raw string" end later than
> the first instance of )abcdef" in the following:
> > fR"abcdef(
> > {R"abcdef()abcdef"}
> > )abcdef"
> >
> > I would be okay with
> > fR"abcdef(
> > abcdef{R"abcdef()abcdef"}abcdef
> > )abcdef"
> (typos fixed in above quotes)
>
> I'm not seeing the difference between those two cases.
> There is a first )abcdef" in the second lines of each example,
> so (arguably) that's where the fR string-literal ends.
>

P3412R3 has a grammar that causes the first )abcdef" to be within a nested
raw string literal.

-- HT