On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:

No, it would often (or even usually) not be that much more work, but it is replacing a very simple and useful mechanism that has worked very well for two decades with something more complicated, somewhat less nice, breaking a not insignificant amount of code in the process, for not much gain as far as I can see.

Fair enough, works for me. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM, brandon s allbery kf8nh wrote:

There's a conflict between \SOA and \SO followed by A, which is resolved by making the latter \SO\&A.

Presumably you mean \SOH? "\xe\x1" is unambiguous. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

Implementing the string escapes falls to a small handful of us who write compilers or tools for working with Haskell, but the proposal seems to be to just randomly discard functionality that isn't particularly hard to implement or all that exotic by comparison with other languages.

Ok, good enough for me. As I mentioned, it does cause bugs, at least it did for me. Admittedly only one though.