IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) support for Raw String Literals

[Brian Goetz]

I think there are two cases:
  - when you're at the _end_ of the string and the next character is the 
auto-inserted close quote;
  - when you're in the _middle_ of the string.

For the first case, I think treating it as you do with double-quote in 
regular strings is right; most of the time, when I type tick-stuff-tick, 
I am ending my raw string literal, so ticks at the end of the string 
should be considered to be the closing delimiter(s).

For the second case, you've already got a well-formed RSL, and you're 
adding stuff in the middle.  I would bias towards (1), with the option 
of an intention to add (or subtract) more ticks to the delimiter.  (The 
intention should skip over tick counts where the body would collide with 
the delimiter, and I'd think this should always be available on RSLs, 
regardless of whether I'm typing more ticks in the middle or not?)

If what I want to do is break the thing up, I'll probably just type 
tick-plus-stuff-plus-tick, and if I ignore the offered intention, I'll 
get what I want.

On 4/20/2018 12:36 PM, Anna Kozlova wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we started developing the support for raw literals and would like to ask
> what do you think.
>
> Given a string `a<caret>b` and press ` at <caret>, what is the expected
> behavior?
>
> 1. Just insert tick: result is `a`b` where it would be parsed as raw
> literal (`a`), unknown identifier (b) and new raw literal till the end of
> file. Second ` at the same position will fix parsing. If one tick was
> intended, one would need to call an intention to fix the number of quotes
> around initial raw literal.
>
> 2. Add additional quotes around initial raw literal: result is ``a`b``.
> Literal is valid but to get `a` + `b` expression, one need to go to the
> string start/end and change the number of ticks or call an intention.
>
> It looks like to me that (1) would be needed more often, like each time
> when one needs to dynamically compose a string. (2) is more about injected
> code in the raw strings which IDE could treat differently anyway. (It's
> possible to create an IDE switcher between these strategies but still the
> default value would be needed.) I would love to see other use cases as
> well.
>
> Thank you,
> Anna