On Jul 30, 2013 7:26 PM, "Erik Christiansen"
wrote:
>
> On 30.07.13 07:41, Ben Fritz wrote:
> > The OP specifically said that valid decimals are "in the form 1.0D0,
> > or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+" so I didn't try stuff like "123."
> > or ".123".
>
> Wot ... just trust the problem specificat
On 30.07.13 07:41, Ben Fritz wrote:
> The OP specifically said that valid decimals are "in the form 1.0D0,
> or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+" so I didn't try stuff like "123."
> or ".123".
Wot ... just trust the problem specification? OK, the OP might be a
mathematician or engineer, since fortra
On 30.07.13 10:25, Charles Campbell wrote:
> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> >123 123.0 123. 456 0.123 .123 789
> Try...
> /\<-\=[0-9]\+\ze\_s
That fails here, also matching the fractional parts of the non-integers.
The tweak of Ben Fritz's regex, on his second thread on this topic,
seems to perform be
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:27:51 AM UTC-5, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 30.07.13 06:57, Ben Fritz wrote:
>
> > Maybe better using "very magic":
>
>
>
> Everything's better with \v ;-)
>
>
Yes. I occasionally edit portions of my .vimrc where I didn't used it, and
wonder why.
>
> > \v<\
On 30.07.13 06:57, Ben Fritz wrote:
> Maybe better using "very magic":
Everything's better with \v ;-)
> \v<\d+>\.@!
On the test line:
123 123.0 123. 456 0.123 .123 789
that regex also detects the fractional parts as integers, so it still
needs a tweak. This seems to do it:
/\v\.@\.@!
But
Erik Christiansen wrote:
123 123.0 123. 456 0.123 .123 789
Try...
/\<-\=[0-9]\+\ze\_s
Regards,
Chip Campbell
--
--
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
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:15:37 AM UTC-5, kilter wrote:
> I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers, integers
> which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double precision
> numbers in the form 1.0D0, or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+ I would like to
> search
> > I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers,
>
> > integers which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double
>
> > precision numbers in the form 1.0D0, or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+ I
> > would like to search for the former, avoiding the latter.
>
> >
On 30.07.13 10:18, RICHARD PITMAN wrote:
> Apologies if this is a re-post, I think the first went to the wrong address...
>
> I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers,
> integers which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double
> precision numbers in the form 1.
On 11:37 Tue 30 Jul , Davido wrote:
> RICHARD PITMAN wrote, on mar 30 jui 10:18 :
>
> > Apologies if this is a re-post, I think the first went to the wrong
> > address...
> >
> > I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers,
> > integers which are simply digits not foll
RICHARD PITMAN wrote, on mar 30 jui 10:18 :
> Apologies if this is a re-post, I think the first went to the wrong address...
>
> I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers,
> integers which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double
> precision numbers in the
Apologies if this is a re-post, I think the first went to the wrong address...
I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers,
integers which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double
precision numbers in the form 1.0D0, or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+ I would
l
I have a fortran program in which there are two sorts of numbers, integers
which are simply digits not followed by a period, and double precision numbers
in the form 1.0D0, or more precisely \d\+\.\d\+D\d\+ I would like to search for
the former, avoiding the latter. Any suggestions gratefully re
13 matches
Mail list logo
