Re: trouble with pattern, character collections

On 2013-02-18 20:28, Marc Weber wrote:
> > I thought 7.3.796 fixed this so [^\n] is the same as '.'? Isn't
> > that the case?
> Rererad my message. My point is that [^\n] should *not* be the same
> as '.' following the principle of least surprise.
>
> Or tell me why there should be two ways to express the same - but no
> sane way to express [^\n].
>
> If its not possible to make [^\n] behave the way you expect there
> should be an error instead.

I seem to recall a similar thread a while back on similar topics of
newlines inside negated character classes. [digging] yup:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.vim/107071

I don't know if my testing proves useful, or if the continuation of
the thread offers you anything valuable, but at least it's not the
first time this has been bumped against.

-tim


--
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.