Tony Balinski wrote: > Quoting Joerg Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Tony Balinski wrote: > > > > > I don't think it would be too difficult to adjust the code to provide > > > consistency (either Perl-like or as I suggest). But I think that work > > > should be done. > > > > Yes, it should. Sorry, I write too much and forgot to summarize: > > > > 1. (?N ) grouping by default, meaning treat \n as special char by > > never matching it unless \n is given explicitly. This implies > > that dot, [^...], and all the escape sequences can't match \n. > > > > 2. (?n ) grouping, meaning drop NEdit's convention to treat \n > > specially and do in effect a Perl-like matching of newlines. That > > is, dot does not match \n, [^...] does match \n if it is not > > listed, and escape sequences do what they stand for: \s, \y, \D, > > \L, and \W match newlines, \S, \Y, \d, \l and \w do not. > > > > 3. For the sake of completeness, invent a (?s ) grouping named after > > Perl's s(ingle line) modifier. This matches newlines like (?n ) > > and in addition forces dot to match \n, too. > > I'd be happy with that. Anyone else have an opinion?
Hmm, no further opinions after a month or so. Perhpaps this just means there is no opposition which is a good sign? Cheers, Jörg -- NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected] http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
