On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:11 PM Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:46 AM Corentin <corentin.jabot@gmail.com> 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-breaks 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.

I went with "Each longest sequence of characters that matches the grammar of a line-break  in a raw string literal results in a new-line in the resulting execution string
literal". I hope that addresses your comment