The ES6 design is sound and if you are in a hurry to get the capability it is a great way to go. Once you start using it and get a taste for quasi-literal little languages you will find that you want more. Having a quasi-literal that let's you name the little language to parse you open a very interesting door. After the dust settles you need a parser and compiler framework that allows plugins at every stage. You "MUST" have a rich and stable AST and it must be usable as a quasi-literal because transpilers abound. You wind up with transpiler code that is templated and quite "Lispy". At the end of the day you will finally let in Macros. I believe thatJulia got all this right. They stick a "@" in front of their macro invocations so you get rid of a lot of confusion. David Moon made the Julia macro system a thing of true beauty. Perfection actually. At the end of the day you want Smalltalk Compile Time "Staged Meta Evaluation". Still, at a minimum go with the ES6 design. Consider "<|" because " ` " is hard to see. Some fonts do a terrible job with it. You could do both. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Re-vwnc-Does-anyone-have-a-new-string-literal-tp466708... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.