Chances are I missed this earlier, but in the case of a raw literal, how is
a literal "{" or "}" given?
It looks as though that could be the only special case here, where escaping
would just be "\{" or "\}".
Am I correct here?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:32 PM Hadriel Kaplan via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While talking with Bengt offline about various use-cases for f-strings, he
> brought up one that I'm not sure about.
>
> Should this compile? (note the 'R' for raw-string):
>
> FR"(name={
> get_name()
> }, time={
> std::system_clock::now()
> :%H:%M:%S
> })";
>
> Right now, in the next rev of the draft I'm working on, the above would
> treated identically as this non-raw f-string:
>
> F"name={\nget_name()\n}, time={\nstd::system_clock::now():%H:%M:%S\n}";
>
>
> And it would interpolate to this:
>
> std::format("name={}, time={:%H:%M:%S\n}",\n get_name()\n,\n
> std::system_clock::now());
>
> Note that there are multiple sets of the two characters "\" and "n" within
> the extracted arguments (not escaped newlines).
>
> So it will fail to compile due to those characters.
>
> ---
>
> If you think it should compile, what should the format-string be after
> interpolation?:
>
> 1. "name={}, time={:%H:%M:%S\n}"
> or
> 2. "name={}, time={:%H:%M:%S}"
>
> And if (2), how do we know the programmer didn't want the newline? It is
> perfectly legal to have one there for chrono formatting, I believe.
>
> ---
>
> Personally I think it's ok for this scenario to fail to compile, but I
> also think it's ok to succeed instead.
>
> The programmer can always do this instead anyway, if they want to split
> things up:
>
> F"name={ get_name() }, "
> F"time={ std::system_clock::now():%H:%M:%S} )";
>
> -hadriel
>
>
>
> Juniper Public
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>