Possible bug(s) in new regex engine involving \@> and \?

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.

--
--
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.