Pure Bikeshedding: Raw Strings (why yes, again!)

[jawbroken]

@Nevin

One option is “any number (greater than 3) of consecutive double-quotes” (or any such odd number), where the opening and closing delimiters must have the same number of double-quotes.

It doesn't seem great for three versus four quotation marks to change behaviour so wildly.

@beccadax

An equal number of underscores before the first delimiter and after the last delimiter.

This is possible but perhaps doesn't align with the use of _ elsewhere in the language and doesn't scream “raw string”. It does feel kind of nicely lightweight, though. Did you consider the same idea, but with # (which I guess is the Rust solution but without the prefixed r)? I haven't thought about the parsing side, though, or whether it fits well with the other uses of #.

print(#""Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly."#)

print(###"""
     print("""
           Hi!
           Hi!
           Hi!
           """)
     """###)

@beccadax

#raw("literal") , with a matching number of parentheses.

This is initially appealing, but when I think about the use case of “Swift code in a raw string” I think that multiple closing parentheses in a row are fairly common in source code. I think you're likely to see #raw(((((((((((( a lot just so people don't have to scan through the string to find the actual minimum number required.

@Dante-Broggi

#rawString(<*>) … #endRaw(<*>)

This gets back to my question in the previous thread about how common raw strings will be (and also if we expect any other special string types). This idea is fairly verbose, which might be okay if they are rare but not if they're common. It will look truly ridiculous in single-line use, though. #raw and #endraw/#endRaw might be more palatable if the right delimiter solution can be found. As an aside, why did you restrict it to operator characters?