On Sunday, December 22, 2013 3:05:06 PM UTC-6, coot_. wrote: > On 20:53 Sun 22 Dec , Marcin Szamotulski wrote: > > > On 05:52 Sat 21 Dec , Brett Stahlman wrote: > > > > Possible bugs in new regex engine involving \@> and \? > > > > > > > > Using the following line of text... > > > > 0123456789 > > > > > > > > ...run the following two :substitute commands with both old and new regex > > > engine, and notice the differences... > > > > > > > > s/\(01\)\(23\)\@>\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3/ > > > > Old (\%=1) > > > > --01--23--456789 > > > > New (\%=2) > > > > ----23--456789 > > > > > > > > s/\(01\)\(23\d\@=\)\?\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3/ > > > > Old (\%=1) > > > > --01--23--456789 > > > > New (\%=2) > > > > --01----23456789 > > > > > > > > Note: The \d\@= in the second example could be replaced with other > > > matching zero-width assertions (e.g., \%v) without changing the results. > > > > > > > > Brett S. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Which version of vim are you using. I cannot reproduce here (Vim > > > 7.4.126, GNU/Linux) the first one, but I can reproduce the second one. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Marcin > > > > > > It seems that there is a problem with grouping, since event these > > patterns fail with 'set re=2':
Yes. But without the \?, re=2 behaves as expected. Brett S. > > :s/\(01\)\(23\%(\d\@=\)\)\?\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3 > > :s/\(01\)\(23\%(\d\)\@=\)\?\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3 > > > > > > Best, > > Marcin -- -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
