On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 22:50 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
If the WG decides that breaking backwards compability on this point is
worthwhile, then I would suggest we go ahead and explicitly warn script
authors that future extensions or revisions MAY redefine other
backslash-character combinations and that scripts should therefore avoid
extraneous backslash escapes.
agreed.
Also, please note that currently, backslashes are only special in quoted
strings and not in multi-line strings. That leaves a choice of either
a) making quoted strings strictly more 'powerful' that multi-line
strings, or
b) changing the interpretation of backslashes in multi-line strings.
Personally, I find (b) a non-starter.
agreed.
Regarding the discussion around how to express NUL, I would rather
_only_ have \u and \U, so that NUL would be \u0000 (or \U00000000).
then it is impossible to express arbitrary octets, e.g., 0xFF, since
it's not a valid UTF-8 sequence.
I dislike escape sequences that are neither fixed length (like \u and \U)
nor bracketed (like perl5's \P{name}).
agreed.
--
Kjetil T.