hurlfmt: accept 'Copy as cURL' from Chrome as it

[jcamiel]

When using "Copy as cURL" from Chrome, we can get this kind of curl command:

curl 'https://hurl.dev/humans.txt' \
  -H 'accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/avif,image/webp,image/apng,*/*;q=0.8,application/signed-exchange;v=b3;q=0.7' \
  -H 'accept-language: en-GB,en-US;q=0.9,en;q=0.8' \
  -H 'cache-control: no-cache' \
  -H 'pragma: no-cache' \
  -H 'priority: u=0, i' \
  -H 'sec-ch-ua: "Google Chrome";v="131", "Chromium";v="131", "Not_A Brand";v="24"' \
  -H 'sec-ch-ua-mobile: ?0' \
  -H 'sec-ch-ua-platform: "macOS"' \
  -H 'sec-fetch-dest: document' \
  -H 'sec-fetch-mode: navigate' \
  -H 'sec-fetch-site: none' \
  -H 'sec-fetch-user: ?1' \
  -H 'upgrade-insecure-requests: 1' \
  -H 'user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36'

Using this as an input to hurlfmt to convert this curl command to an Hurl file raises an error due to the backslash escape:

$ hurlfmt --in curl /tmp/curl.txt 
error: Can not parse curl command at line 1: Invalid escape at column 37

Note: in Firefox, there is no backslash

curl 'https://hurl.dev/humans.txt' -H 'User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0' -H 'Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8' -H 'Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5' -H 'Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br, zstd' -H 'DNT: 1' -H 'Connection: keep-alive' -H 'Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1' -H 'Sec-Fetch-Dest: document' -H 'Sec-Fetch-Mode: navigate' -H 'Sec-Fetch-Site: cross-site' -H 'Priority: u=0, i' -H 'Pragma: no-cache' -H 'Cache-Control: no-cache' -H 'TE: trailers'

[ilyaaay]

Hi. I want to take this issue.

[jcamiel]

Go @ilyaaay

[ikorason]

hey @ilyaaay r u still working on this? if not would you mind I take a look?

[ilyaaay]

@ikorason Hi. Yeah. I'm working with this issue. It need complex refactor

[ikorason]

@ilyaaay if its ok with you, I have a fix where there is no complex refactor involved

@jcamiel please check
#3712

[jcamiel]

Yes it's looks OK. Unless mistaken, I don't see any needs to change it more,