Just curious if any headway has been made on this lookbehind regex issue? I only ask because it breaks a pretty popular JS syntax plugin.
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:34:52 PM UTC-7, Amadeus Demarzi wrote: > Alright, so I am admittedly terrible with Regexes, but I think I did find > something. > > Using this file for the regex test: > > https://gist.github.com/amadeus/82d0288a9b8b2e3ff2a9 > > And using this regex in search, with hlsearch on: > > \(\(\(return\|case\)\s\+\)\@<=\|\(\([)\]"']\|\d\|\w\)\s*\)\@<!\)\/ > > Both engines 1 and 2 highlight the / right after `case` and `return`. Only > engine 1 highlights the / on line 1 though. > > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:56:21 PM UTC-7, Amadeus Demarzi wrote: > > I am pretty bad with regex stuff, but I will try to figure out how to > > isolate it. > > > > I posted it here quickly just in case there was something silly I was > > missing in that snippet. > > > > For what it's worth, it's used in this syntax plugin: > > > > http://github.com/pangloss/vim-javascript > > > > And setting the regexpengine=1 | syntax enable fixes the problem, although > > it's a far from ideal solution. > > > > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-7, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > Amadeus Demarzi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the update to vim 7.4, it seems as if this particular regex just > > > > > > > doesn't match in particular cases in 7.4, but it worked fine in 7.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax region jsRegexpString > > > > start=+\(\(\(return\|case\)\s\+\)\@<=\|\(\([)\]"']\|\d\|\w\)\s*\)\@<!\)/\(\*\|/\)\@!+ > > > > skip=+\\\\\|\\/+ end=+/[gimy]\{,4}+ > > > > contains=jsSpecial,jsRegexpCharClass,jsRegexpGroup,@jsRegexpSpecial,@htmlPreproc > > > > oneline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does not match in 7.4, but did in 7.3: > > > > > > > var x = /test/; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matches in 7.4 and 7.3: > > > > > > > return /test/; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am posting in here in case there is a simple quickfix that I am > > > > > > > overlooking. Otherwise I can attempt to put together a more > > > > > > > reproducible test case. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll see if I can reproduce it. Please try to come up with a simple > > > > > > search pattern that fails. You can use 'regexpengine' to select the old > > > > > > code. A syntax command makes it difficult to pinpoint the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From "know your smileys": > > > > > > ~#:-( I just washed my hair, and I can't do nuthin' with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- 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 vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
