> One is pedagogical; I think a world where single line strings are denoted by > a single double quote, whereas multi line strings are denoted by triple > double quotes is a relatively wimple world for the user to grok. This > proposal effectively blurs the line between the two variants, as now you can > (in the degenerate case where all lines in a text block ends with '\') > express a single line string with a text block syntax - which I understand is > the part of the goal, but…
In some sense, the line was already blurry, because existing “single line strings” could have embedded \n newlines in them. IMO a better pedagogical model is “one dimensional vs two dimensional” string literals, but this may be a hard sell. In a world without \n, I think it would still be pedagogically simple: a “legacy” string literal is a single line of OUTPUT, and a text block can have multiple lines of output. The presense of \<nl> merely changes how the _input_ is organized. My conclusion is that, while the clamoring that inspired us to do this feature is “give us multi-line strings”, to the extent we continue to call them multi-line strings, we play into this confusion.
