On 3/11/26 18:24, Hubert Tong wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:20 AM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer@gmx.net <mailto:jens.maurer@gmx.net>> 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.