Christian wrote:
> 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.
There was a typo in the description of patch 7.4.526, causing the NFA
changes not to be included. I'll make another patch for that now.
--
<Beeth> Girls are like internet domain names,
the ones I like are already taken.
<honx> Well, you can stil get one from a strange country :-P
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
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.
