On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/11/26 18:24, Hubert Tong wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:20 AM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]
> <mailto: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.
>
> Understood, but why would you be "okay" with the second example,
> given that it also has a nested raw string literal?
> (There is just a bit of fluff before and after the braces in your second
> example, right?)
>

Because the second example uses the d-char-sequence as part of the
extraction field boundaries, which seems to me the way to help make the
delimiters to the "raw content" somewhat unique and searchable.

-- HT