Hi Bram!
On Do, 20 Nov 2014, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> The problem appears to be that returning NFA_TOO_EXPENSIVE is handled as
> non-zero, thus as if there was a match. To make it consistent we should
> return <= 0 for no match and > 0 for a match in all the *regexec_nl()
> functions. And check for "> 0" in vim_regexec_both().
Is this supposed to be fixed with 7.4.526? Because I still see
,----[ [nfa_regexec_nl()] ]-
| return (nfa_regexec_both(line, col) != 0);
`----
in regexp_nfa.c That is still wrong.
Best,
Christian
--
Heute sind wir alle voneinander abhängig, niemand kann sich mehr in
seine Festung zurückziehen, ein Inseldasein pflegen.
-- Dalai-Lama
--
--
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/d/optout.
