Matthew Plant <address@hidden> writes:

> I would argue that is still workable, through various hacks. In the cond
> case if you wanted to specify I raw string literal you would do
> (("default")), which I think is still illegal.

Yes, that's illegal. But why not #"foo" (like in Clojure regexps)? Or
SXEmacs version of raw strings #r"foo"? To me, that reads much better
than ("foo") and is much less ambiguous.

Bye,
Tassilo

>> > What if we assume that any string surrounded immediately by
>> > parenthesis is a raw string literal? I'm pretty sure every instance
>> > of ("...") is currently illegal,...
>>
>> Nope, inside a `cond', ("default") is a short alternative for (t
>> "default").