<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.07.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Ben
Grasset:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL4d7FikLrTbMtYxW28KTUsmq6JN7FcKNiSju__F--DHt+p5Cw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sven Barth via
fpc-devel <<a href="mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> I'm with Michael here: I see no
*need* for a separate syntax for a multi line string.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I don't really think the suggested backtick way is
different enough from anything that exists to be considered
a "separate syntax", though. It's the exact same thing, with
a one-character difference at the opening and close of the
string.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
As far as the compiler is concerned it definitely *is* a separate
syntax. It's a completely new token that didn't exist before with
new code inside the parser. Don't try to sugarcoat it because the
difference between an apostrophe and a backtick is optically that
small.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sven<br>
</body>
</html>