On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:38:56 PM UTC-6, MarcWeber wrote: > > So why should anybody write [^\n] if you can use '.'? So why make [^\n] > > behave the same way?
Sometimes the meaning is clearer. What if you're searching for a sequence of certain characters including newlines, where the first character is NOT a newline? I'd probably want to use: /[^\n]\&[a-f0-9\n]\+ which is equivalent to, but clearer in meaning than: /.\&[a-f0-9\n]\+ -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
