>> It follows the general form of a negative line search for embedded >> <search>: >> >> /^\%(.*[<limit0>.*]<search>[.*<limit1>]\)[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For example, to match a line that contains "foo" but does not contain >> "bar" between "big" and "tummy": >> >> /\%(.*big.*bar.*tummy\)[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Edward Wong wrote: > Learn a lot more about regexp from this post. Thanks! > >> Sorry, I missed the ^ anchor: >> >> /^\%(.*big.*bar.*tummy\)[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Just a question, why it is necessary to have the ^ anchor? Isn't .* > already includes the characters start from the beginning of the line? > Sorry if I'm asking a stupid one.... Not a stupid question at all. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and variants are tricky (IMHO). Considering: /^\%(.*big.*bar.*tummy\)[EMAIL PROTECTED] First, big.*bar.*tummy can not match quite often! Just as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ordered. So look at the following two lines: big junk bar junk tummy junk foo junk bar junk tummy junk foo Its best to :set hls first, so as to see what matches. Try matching with and without that leading "^". With the "^", big junk bar junk tummy junk foo <-- doesn't match junk bar junk tummy junk foo <-- matches which is what one would expect. However, without that "^", the pattern is free to start matching _after_ the start-of-line, and so ig junk bar junk tummy junk foo <-- matches junk bar junk tummy junk foo <-- matches (I left off the non-matching "b" in the first line). Thus, both lines match, which isn't what's wanted, especially considering the regexp was expected to be used with :g/regex-here/somecmd Regards, Chip Campbell
