I thought we had just established that nbsp is not in Unicodešs definition of whitespace. So why should \s match it?
On 2005-04-15 18:56, "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote: > : Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-15 15:38 (-0700): > : > : Do \s and <?ws> match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0? > : > Yes. > : > : That makes \s+ and \s*, and thus <?ws> very useless for anything but > : trimming whitespace. For splitting (including word wrapping), it'd do > : exactly the wrong thing. > > Maybe we just need a <bws> for breaking white space, or some such. > <?ws> is primarily used in pattern matching with :w, where a > non-breaking space in the input would presumably be matched by a > non-breaking space in the pattern, or maybe an explicit <nbsp>. > As long as patterns (with or without :w) treat non-breaking spaces > as ordinary matching characters, it should work out, methinks. > Though it's probably a hair more readable to use an explicit <nbsp>... > > Larry >
