Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string

[Daniel Brooks]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Yes, see above (and in general, see the "Mutability" node in the ELisp
> manual).

> I'm still not sure I understand how to correct that.  If using "string
> constant" is what is needed, then it's easy to switch to that
> terminology throughout.  But I'm not yet sure this is the way.

I don't think that "constant" is the right word to use. After all, the
string that you get from a string literal can be modified just like a
string from any other source.

I think that "literal" is the right word, because it correctly describes
the provenance of the string. The alternatives to a string literal are
to call a constructor function such as make-string, or to fetch a string
from a buffer, or from input, or some other source. All of these result
in a string, but the source of the string can matter a lot.

Likewise a "list literal" is the syntax for creating a list by quoting
it rather than by calling list. The #s syntax for literal hash
tables gives you the same results as if you called make-hash-table.

db48x