Possible bugs in new regex engine involving \@> and \? Using the following line of text... 0123456789
...run the following two :substitute commands with both old and new regex engine, and notice the differences... s/\(01\)\(23\)\@>\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3/ Old (\%=1) --01--23--456789 New (\%=2) ----23--456789 s/\(01\)\(23\d\@=\)\?\(.*\)/--\1--\2--\3/ Old (\%=1) --01--23--456789 New (\%=2) --01----23456789 Note: The \d\@= in the second example could be replaced with other matching zero-width assertions (e.g., \%v) without changing the results. Brett S. -- -- 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.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.