http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45399
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-08 18:31:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > As you can see, I somehow believe that "\n" and "\r" are not interpreted > correctly and replace these (should it be necessary, at least at one time it > was?) and then added the same for chr(0) later on. There's no need to replace newlines. There's only a need to replace nuls to avoid a warning. Carriage returns in the source code seem to get stripped from the raw string. > And the intention of a C++ feature, since when did it ever come to limit its > use? Agreed, I was just answering your question "What else is the purpose of raw strings other than to contain binary blobs?"
