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.
I'll add a remark in the todo list. Thanks for the examples. Can you simplify them further? Can you also see the effect with only a search? -- Laughing helps. It's like jogging on the inside. /// 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_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.
