Hi Thorsten and Nicolas, Nicolas Richard <theonewiththeevill...@yahoo.fr> writes:
> It's almost certainly a typo, but it introduces no bug because '*' can't > bear its special meaning after '^', so the regexp engine will make it > match exactly the '*' character. But it'd be better written as "^*+" > (but this is not recommended) or, preferably, "^\\*+" indeed. Fixed in master, thanks, -- Bastien
