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 -- -- 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.
