Eric Schulte <eric.schu...@gmx.com> writes: > Yea, that sounds reasonable, thanks for taking care of this. If I find > time I'll dig through the mailing list and see if I can find the exact > reason why that portion of the regexp was added.
That would be a great starting point to avoid repeating past mistakes. > I've had the experience before of reverting a piece of code that seemed > superfluous to then have old bugs re-emerge and finally revert my > reversion. So I now try to err on the side of deference towards > existing code. I know the feeling. But I'm pretty confident on this one. BTW, the bug should be fixed in 7.9.x now. Regards,
