On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Antony Scriven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought Russ Cox had solved this in the code on his > website, or am I mistaken?
Thanks for the pointer, I'm not aware of this. I'll have a look at the code. > > So does anyone really need this feature to be kept? > > I don't need it, and though I'd prefer the longest match > rather than the first alternative (as specified by POSIX) > I don't really care too much as long as it is well > documented. And since the original vi didn't have > alternation, we don't need to worry about compatibility in > that regard. OK. That's good. > > If so, please do tell me. For me, the removal of this > > 'feature' won't break anything. > > It won't break anything that I use regexps for. But... > I know Parsing Expression Grammars can make use of this > feature to give precedence to one match over another. You > might want to check whether any of the syntax files do > something similar. --Antony This sounds like a pretty serious problem. I'll do the checking after I tie up the last few remaining bugs in the NFA matcher. Or better yet, can someone more familiar with the syntax files whether any syntax is dependent on this particular behavior of the regexp engine? Thanks! Xiaozhou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
