On 2013-02-18 20:28, Marc Weber wrote: > > I thought 7.3.796 fixed this so [^\n] is the same as '.'? Isn't > > that the case? > Rererad my message. My point is that [^\n] should *not* be the same > as '.' following the principle of least surprise. > > Or tell me why there should be two ways to express the same - but no > sane way to express [^\n]. > > If its not possible to make [^\n] behave the way you expect there > should be an error instead.
I seem to recall a similar thread a while back on similar topics of newlines inside negated character classes. [digging] yup: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.vim/107071 I don't know if my testing proves useful, or if the continuation of the thread offers you anything valuable, but at least it's not the first time this has been bumped against. -tim -- -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
