On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:21:55 PM UTC+9, Ben Fritz wrote: > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:13:48 AM UTC-5, Ben Fritz wrote: > > Isn't that first bit much too complicated? Am I missing something, or is > > this: > > > > \%(\%(\.\@<!\.\)\@<!\|::\)\_s*\zs\%(RUBY_... > > > > equivalent to this: > > > > \%([^.]\.\_s*\)\@<!\%(RUBY_... > > > > ? > > > > Well, it's not quite equivalent. For example the existing pattern will match: > > abc. RUBY_VERSION > > and fail to match: > > abc.RUBY_VERSION > > The new pattern fails to match both. I've never even looked at Ruby before, I > have no idea whether which behavior is intended.
Thank you for your investigation. I think both examples should not match because both patterns are equal method call in Ruby syntax and it's not a constant. Perhaps is that worth to submit to upstream? https://github.com/vim-ruby/vim-ruby/ -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
