Axel Bender wrote:
> the break is still evident in 1156; however, I was able to "track" the
> issue back to 1138 (backup version).
>
> > "Are you saying that this vim file is not highlighted properly?"
>
> No, using my own vim.vim (the one I submitted) with re=1 as both, the
> syntax file and the source file, the highlighting is correct; with
> re=2 the highlighting is not correct (e.g. it doesn't highlight the
> "syntax" keywords).
>
> Steps to reproduce
> vi -U NONE -u NONE -i NONE -N --noplugin vim.vim
> syntax on " Just load the basic colors
> syntax off
> set re=1
> so %
> syntax off
> set re=2
> so %
>
> The same also applies with re=... in .vimrc.
OK, any .vim script using your syntax file shows the problem. It
appears this pattern matches everywhere with the new engine:
\(\<command\)\@<=.*
While this works OK:
\%#=1\(\<command\)\@<=.*
I'll have to do some debugging.
--
Don't drink and drive. You might hit a bump and spill your beer.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" 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_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
