OSNews

I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make.

Sorry, but then you clearly did not understood my point.

Obviously, you seem to believe that C's way of doing character strings is the only way to accomplish the task.

Sorry, this is just a product of your own imagination. Otherwise feel free to literally quote where I suggested this! Maybe you should try to better understand my few paragraphs.

Now since you fail to comprehend the point: It is not about the only way to do certain things. Just bringing the ability to intermix with C is not a good or compelling reason to explicitly avoid the C notation.[/i]

But again, you clearly fail to comprehend this as my only complaint, to bring C as reason not to support C escapes. As you wrote yourself:

Then again, what's the big deal with support Pascal-like string rather than C-style strings? If I'd supported C-style strings, then the people on the *other* side of the fence would complain.

Well, this does not sound as a reason why explicitly to avoid C escapes. Or in other word, it is just an arbitrary choice. And then you go on with the readability issue:

C comes in pretty low on the list because of its well-known readability problems. [...] But C's escape sequences are *not* particularly readable [...]

Readability issue is a subjective matter (or better: matter of taste and possibly prior training of the person sitting in front of the computer). Please, again, do not intermix it with C escapes as being technically a bad idea.

And the good reason for supporting C escape sequences in a non-C language is?

I think you forgot what I have wrote at this point. It certainly has advantages for people programming intermixed C with another language. But again, you resort here to the "inverse problem", and avoids the issue that it is simlply not a technical reason not to use the C escape sequence.