On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:30:37 AM UTC-5, Hiroshi Shirosaki wrote: > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:21:55 PM UTC+9, Ben Fritz wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:13:48 AM UTC-5, Ben Fritz wrote: > > > Isn't that first bit much too complicated? Am I missing something, or is > > > this: > > > > > > \%(\%(\.\@<!\.\)\@<!\|::\)\_s*\zs\%(RUBY_... > > > > > > equivalent to this: > > > > > > \%([^.]\.\_s*\)\@<!\%(RUBY_... > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > Well, it's not quite equivalent. For example the existing pattern will > > match: > > > > abc. RUBY_VERSION > > > > and fail to match: > > > > abc.RUBY_VERSION > > > > The new pattern fails to match both. I've never even looked at Ruby before, > > I have no idea whether which behavior is intended. > > Thank you for your investigation. > > I think both examples should not match because both patterns are equal method > call in Ruby syntax and it's not a constant. > > Perhaps is that worth to submit to upstream? > > https://github.com/vim-ruby/vim-ruby/
I included the listed maintainer in the email, but just in case, I just entered an issue so it doesn't get lost: https://github.com/vim-ruby/vim-ruby/issues/157 Doug, feel free to close it whenever you like if you don't want an issue in the tracker for it. -- -- 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 vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
