On Dec 15, 2013 12:38 AM, "Erik Christiansen" <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > On 14.12.13 18:55, Jerry Rocteur wrote: > > This is probably the best article that I've found and used to get my > > reg exps working within Vim. > > > > http://vimregex.com/ > > The first example under "4.5 Grouping and Backreferences" at > that site: > > :s:\(\w\+\)\(\s\+\)\(\w\+\):\3\2\1: > > is neat in its effect¹, but it's all b\ac\ks\la\sh\es! > > Why oh why oh why would anyone not use its human readable form: > > :s:\v(\w+)(\s+)(\w+):\3\2\1: > > where we can easily read the meaning at a single glance, now that the > redundant backslash snowstorm is removed. > > ¹ Both forms swap the first two words on a line: > > one two three # becomes > > two one three > > Could it be a disservice to new converts to teach them an obsolete regex > dialect when it is such an obfuscated way to do things, and Vim offers a > so much more legible alternative, which is a modern posix standard form?
In my opinion, yes. \v is not used habitually in the Vim forums I frequent, and it has always puzzled me that Vim regulars persist in offering the 'magic' form instead of 'very magic'. For non-plugin contexts it makes no sense. Personally I use \v liberally when editing unless I explicitly want \V or default magic behavior. Justin M. Keyes -- -- 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.
