So I would like to delete the part of the previous post and apologize
you Ben for my carelessness.
No need at all to apologise.
I think that ':help sub-replace-expression' describes about
substitution of buffer. I think that substitution of string should not
do such interpretation. What really we want seems the flag which
disable such interpretation. The variable reg_line_lbr seems to work
as such flag, but as you mention, we may need another flag.
The help section is definitely written with a buffer perspective.
However, it doesn't have anything in it to say it is restricted to that.
I'm not sure what makes more sense. I lean towards doing the
substitutions, though, so that \= works the same way regardless of
whether you use it in a substitute() or a :substitute.
For buffers, this means:
<CR> => line break
\<CR> => carriage return
<NL> => line break (for convenience)
\<NL> => linefeed, which is interpreted as a null in a buffer
For strings:
<CR> => linefeed
\<CR> => carriage return
<NL> => line break, linefeed (unchanged)
\<NL> => null (ends the string)
Part of my reasoning for this is that I can't think of any situation
where you would want to use \= in a substitute() call, unless you were
writing some plugin that took a \= originally intended for a :substitute
command and used it in substitute(). Ordinarily if you want an
expression in substitute(), you just write the expression as the
argument.
We'll need to hear from Bram whether he's willing to change this.
Yes, I would. Is he check this group periodically? Or is it better to
post this issue to vim_dev?
He definitely follows vim_use a bit, but appears more frequently in
vim_dev. I'm sure he wouldn't mind being CCed or emailed directly with a
specific question about a patch (or proposed patch), though, as it is a
question only he can answer. :-)
Ben.
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
