Geir said:
[snip]
> > 3. Why do that when \" \\ -> " \ should be enough to eschew the current
> > hack?
> >
> > Rebuttal:
> > Because then we really have two different escaping rules for "" string
> > definitions. One rule for dealing with valid references and directives
and
> > one for dealin
Another thought. What if we used ""->" instead of \"->" within a string
definition for the escaping behavior? That's still a pretty simple rule
and follows the interpretation rules of some programming languages. I
think any instance of "" within a string definition in the current
Velocity would
