{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreia3pus2mcgqqksmiugz6rsfn76qonpi44vr66454ebc2lrww3s4jq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mhy2q3j3rsa2"
  },
  "path": "/t/feature-request-proc-macro-with-content-as-string/24061#post_6",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-26T15:25:29.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "textContent": "I think I'd much rather have a `my_macro!\"foobar\"` syntax at that point, which could just desugar to a proc macro which has a single string literal in its token stream. Although at that point I'd think why not allow that syntax for other literals too, like `my_macro!32` which is then hard to argue to be distinct from custom integer literals like `32my_macro`.\n\nOn the implementation side passing which token the macro was called with (`my_macro!()`, `my_macro![]`, `my_macro!{}`) using a macro metadata as a second parameter (like is being discussed with const derives right now) might be interesting as a more general addition.",
  "title": "Feature request: proc_macro with content as string"
}