Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: trouble with pattern, character collections

Expand Messages
  • Christian Brabandt
    Hi Ben! ... It is. The problem is, that there is a difference between the evaluated string [^ n] which means match anything but linefeed and [^ n] which
    Message 1 of 28 , Feb 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ben!

      On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Ben Fritz wrote:

      > I thought 7.3.796 fixed this so [^\n] is the same as '.'? Isn't that the case?

      It is. The problem is, that there is a difference between the evaluated
      string "[^\n]" which means match anything but linefeed and '[^\n]' which
      means anything but "a line seperator". This is, so that the linefeed
      control char whithin a text can be matched by '.' or [^\n]

      regards,
      Christian
      --
      Früher gab es da Universalregeln. Zum Glück ist es jetzt komplizierter
      geworden.

      --
      --
      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+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • Christian Brabandt
      Hi Tim! ... That problem should have been solved by patch 7.3.796. regards, Christian -- Wie man sein Kind nicht nennen sollte: Bill Jard -- -- You received
      Message 2 of 28 , Feb 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Tim!

        On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Tim Chase wrote:

        > 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.

        That problem should have been solved by patch 7.3.796.

        regards,
        Christian
        --
        Wie man sein Kind nicht nennen sollte:
        Bill Jard

        --
        --
        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+unsubscribe@....
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
      • Christian Brabandt
        Hi Marc! ... No, it is because n is evaluated to a true line feed, so [^ n] matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while [^ n] matches anything
        Message 3 of 28 , Feb 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Marc!

          On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:

          > I don't think that additional threads are going to help
          > There is an issue, and we should find a way to fix (IMHO).
          > Let me summarize again - and tell me if you feel differently.
          >
          > Test cases:
          > [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
          > [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze"))
          >
          > I expect both do the same, the difference is that the second as chr(10) in [^],
          > while the first has \n (which should be translated to chr(10).
          >
          > However I obsorve that [2] returns 0 as expected , but [1] does return
          > 1, thus it matches \n even though I told Vim that I do not want to match
          > it. People told me this was because '.' is equal to [^\n].

          No, it is because "\n" is evaluated to a true line feed, so "[^\n]"
          matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while '[^\n]' matches
          anything but ASCII NUL (which is used internally by Vim to distinguish
          lines from each other (e.g. a line seperator), so that a . matches
          anyhing in the buffer but the line seperator)

          > If so which is the best way to fix this - and which should be the way to
          > express [^\n] meaning do not match \n rather than behave like '.' then ?

          [^\n] should always behave like '.'

          Mit freundlichen Grüßen
          Christian
          --
          Letzte Worte eines Machos:
          "Hallo Süße, wie wär's mit uns beiden?"

          --
          --
          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+unsubscribe@....
          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
        • Marc Weber
          ... Christian: Once and for all - I don t want anybody to explain me that [^ n] behaves in a wired way because . should behave the way it does. I m *not*
          Message 4 of 28 , Feb 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > No, it is because "\n" is evaluated to a true line feed, so "[^\n]"
            > matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while '[^\n]' matches
            > anything but ASCII NUL (which is used internally by Vim to distinguish
            > lines from each other (e.g. a line seperator), so that a . matches
            > anyhing in the buffer but the line seperator)

            Christian: Once and for all - I don't want anybody to explain me that
            [^\n] behaves in a wired way because '.' should behave the way it does.

            I'm *not* talking about internals. I'm talking the user interface you
            and me and new users are faced with every day. So help me think about
            whether there is a way to improve the situation.

            So why should anybody write [^\n] if you can use '.'? So why make [^\n]
            behave the same way? Why not make it raise an error such as:

            E99999: For odd reasons you should try "[\n]" instead of '[^\n]' and be
            done. True reason see long reply by Christian on ml ..

            Trouble solved within 2 min. No debugging why vim does not behave the
            way you expect. This guard would be trival to implement. if []
            collections are negated and contain \n show the message.
            And it would not break backward compatibility. Which is the use case for
            allowing '[^\n]' at all?

            I'm not saying it solves the issue, but it would cause less pain,
            do you agree on this?

            I wrote vim-addon-manager to improve usage experience for users - and
            this is another case just driving me crazy which I think needs to
            improved - the issue is in which way.

            Marc Weber

            --
            --
            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+unsubscribe@....
            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
          • Erik Christiansen
            ... Vim already uses $ for EOL, documented at :h $ , which even seems to offer the synonym . Vim already has . to mean . , so does not need
            Message 5 of 28 , Feb 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 18.02.13 23:06, Christian Brabandt wrote:
              > No, it is because "\n" is evaluated to a true line feed, so "[^\n]"
              > matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while '[^\n]' matches
              > anything but ASCII NUL (which is used internally by Vim to distinguish
              > lines from each other (e.g. a line seperator), so that a . matches
              > anyhing in the buffer but the line seperator)
              >
              > > If so which is the best way to fix this - and which should be the way to
              > > express [^\n] meaning do not match \n rather than behave like '.' then ?

              Vim already uses '$' for EOL, documented at ":h $", which even seems to
              offer the synonym "<End>". Vim already has '.' to mean '.', so does not
              need <elephant> for the same. So why do it???

              > [^\n] should always behave like '.'

              No, sorry, only in a line devoid of newlines. By definition.
              In regex terms, i.e the user view, [^\n] may match anything other than a
              newline, while '.' may match any single character. Only if newlines have
              been stripped in the internal line representation, and e.g. replaced
              with NUL, can '.' legitimately fail to match \n. Otherwise, we can only
              reasonably say the [^\n] should NOT always behave like '.'

              In contrast, "[^\n]" _is_ identical to '[^\n]' in regex syntax, so must
              be identical in behaviour, devoid of even subtle differences, in any
              context.

              On 18.02.13 23:38, Marc Weber wrote:
              > I'm *not* talking about internals. I'm talking the user interface you
              > and me and new users are faced with every day. So help me think about
              > whether there is a way to improve the situation.
              >
              > So why should anybody write [^\n] if you can use '.'? So why make [^\n]
              > behave the same way? Why not make it raise an error such as:
              >
              > E99999: For odd reasons you should try "[\n]" instead of '[^\n]' and be
              > done. True reason see long reply by Christian on ml ..

              Or E99999: Unsupported syntax. Vim fails to give rational syntax-relevant
              effect to this regex. Try <whatever> instead.

              Sorry, [^\n] can never match \n ; not even in pink. That is broken
              behaviour.

              Erik

              --
              Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
              and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
              - A. P. J.

              --
              --
              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+unsubscribe@....
              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
            • Christian Brabandt
              Hi Erik! ... Well, if you think about it, $ matches something different. You can t say, /n$n can you? ... Because the . is a perfect valid alias to [^ n]
              Message 6 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Erik!

                On Di, 19 Feb 2013, Erik Christiansen wrote:

                > On 18.02.13 23:06, Christian Brabandt wrote:
                > > No, it is because "\n" is evaluated to a true line feed, so "[^\n]"
                > > matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while '[^\n]' matches
                > > anything but ASCII NUL (which is used internally by Vim to distinguish
                > > lines from each other (e.g. a line seperator), so that a . matches
                > > anyhing in the buffer but the line seperator)
                > >
                > > > If so which is the best way to fix this - and which should be the way to
                > > > express [^\n] meaning do not match \n rather than behave like '.' then ?
                >
                > Vim already uses '$' for EOL, documented at ":h $", which even seems to
                > offer the synonym "<End>".


                Well, if you think about it, $ matches something different. You can't
                say, "/n$n" can you?

                > Vim already has '.' to mean '.', so does not
                > need <elephant> for the same. So why do it???

                Because the '.' is a perfect valid alias to [^\n] in most regexes
                anyway? Why cripple it?

                > > [^\n] should always behave like '.'
                >
                > No, sorry, only in a line devoid of newlines. By definition.
                > In regex terms, i.e the user view, [^\n] may match anything other than a
                > newline, while '.' may match any single character. Only if newlines have
                > been stripped in the internal line representation, and e.g. replaced
                > with NUL, can '.' legitimately fail to match \n. Otherwise, we can only
                > reasonably say the [^\n] should NOT always behave like '.'

                In all regexp engines that I know of, the '.' by default doesn't match a
                newline, so it is perfectly valid to have [^\n] match the same as '.'

                > In contrast, "[^\n]" _is_ identical to '[^\n]' in regex syntax, so must
                > be identical in behaviour, devoid of even subtle differences, in any
                > context.

                Please read again the article to which you replied. I already said, why
                this is different. This comes from the string-evaluation of the "[..]"
                expression. You can read about it at :h expr-string.

                > Sorry, [^\n] can never match \n ; not even in pink. That is broken
                > behaviour.

                Please come back with some arguments. I told you why this happens. If
                you don't want that, Vim already provides a setting to fix this.

                :set cpo+=l


                Mit freundlichen Grüßen
                Christian
                --
                Windows ist kein Virus - ein Virus tut etwas.

                --
                --
                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+unsubscribe@....
                For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
              • Christian Brabandt
                Hi Marc! ... Bram, here is a patch, making [^ n] not match NL within the text and that also documents, that . matches CR and LF within the text. This makes
                Message 7 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Marc!

                  On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:

                  > I don't think that additional threads are going to help
                  > There is an issue, and we should find a way to fix (IMHO).
                  > Let me summarize again - and tell me if you feel differently.
                  >
                  > Test cases:
                  > [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                  > [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze"))
                  >
                  > I expect both do the same, the difference is that the second as chr(10) in [^],
                  > while the first has \n (which should be translated to chr(10).
                  >
                  > However I obsorve that [2] returns 0 as expected , but [1] does return
                  > 1, thus it matches \n even though I told Vim that I do not want to match
                  > it. People told me this was because '.' is equal to [^\n].
                  >
                  >
                  > Current situation: at least to be fixed
                  > 1:
                  > No matter whether '.' should behave like [^\n]
                  > [1] and [2] should behave the same, right?
                  > 2:
                  > This should be documented.
                  > (Do you all at least agree these two statments?)

                  Bram, here is a patch, making [^\n] not match NL within the text and
                  that also documents, that '.' matches CR and LF within the text.

                  This makes both [1] and [2] behave the same and seems to better match
                  the users expectations.

                  regards,
                  Christian
                  --
                  Ein Volk kann nicht auf seine Genies, sondern auf das Volk, auf die
                  Menge stolz sein - die Genies können auf die Genies es sein.
                  -- Jean Paul

                  --
                  --
                  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+unsubscribe@....
                  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                • Christian Brabandt
                  Hi Marc! ... Because [^ n] is perfectly valid? ... If you don t want that, use :set cpo+=l ... It is a perfect valid regular expression. What is the reason to
                  Message 8 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Marc!

                    On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:

                    > > No, it is because "\n" is evaluated to a true line feed, so "[^\n]"
                    > > matches anything but ASCII NUL and ASCII 10, while '[^\n]' matches
                    > > anything but ASCII NUL (which is used internally by Vim to distinguish
                    > > lines from each other (e.g. a line seperator), so that a . matches
                    > > anyhing in the buffer but the line seperator)
                    >
                    > Christian: Once and for all - I don't want anybody to explain me that
                    > [^\n] behaves in a wired way because '.' should behave the way it does.
                    >
                    > I'm *not* talking about internals. I'm talking the user interface you
                    > and me and new users are faced with every day. So help me think about
                    > whether there is a way to improve the situation.
                    >
                    > So why should anybody write [^\n] if you can use '.'? So why make [^\n]
                    > behave the same way? Why not make it raise an error such as:

                    Because [^\n] is perfectly valid?

                    >
                    > E99999: For odd reasons you should try "[\n]" instead of '[^\n]' and be
                    > done. True reason see long reply by Christian on ml ..
                    >
                    > Trouble solved within 2 min. No debugging why vim does not behave the
                    > way you expect. This guard would be trival to implement. if []
                    > collections are negated and contain \n show the message.

                    If you don't want that, use :set cpo+=l

                    > And it would not break backward compatibility. Which is the use case for
                    > allowing '[^\n]' at all?

                    It is a perfect valid regular expression. What is the reason to forbid
                    its use?

                    Anyway, I just made a patch, that should match your expectations.


                    regards,
                    Christian
                    --
                    Adam - der erste Entwurf für Eva.
                    -- Jeanne Moreau

                    --
                    --
                    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+unsubscribe@....
                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                  • Marc Weber
                    I want Vim defaults to be - sane - follow the principle of least surprise. (I d like nocompatible to be set by default, but that s another story) Christian:
                    Message 9 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I want Vim defaults to be
                      - sane
                      - follow the principle of least surprise.
                      (I'd like nocompatible to be set by default, but that's another story)

                      Christian: :set cpo+=l still makes my test cases fail:
                      [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                      [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze")

                      You explained it by \n not being chr(10), so what is it?

                      Let's try by understanding \n's behaviour:
                      ==========================================

                      case 1) vim buf
                      To my undestanding $ matches end of line (in a vim buffer) without eating that
                      end of line whereas \n does both: it matches and eats the end of line.
                      Eg try /..\n.. and :set hlsearch

                      Thus \n is the same as $\n when applying regex to vim buffers. dos 1310 usually
                      is encoded in a ff setting, so \n does what you want if you want it.

                      case 2) matchstr, matchall, substitute =~ and whatnot (?)

                      So if \n is not chr(10), what is it then in this case?

                      echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))

                      clearly indicates it matches \n and and I agree on Erik which called it this way

                      Sorry, [^\n] can never match \n ; not even in pink. That is broken
                      behaviour.

                      So from this point of view I'd say \n behavior is broken when regex get applied
                      to strings only (which your patch is supposed to fix - I'll test it
                      later)

                      Is there more to fix?
                      =====================

                      issue 1)

                      docs state:
                      [] (with 'nomagic': \[]) */[]* */\[]* */\_[]* */collection*
                      \_[]

                      Well - try /[] - it will not be treated as collection, it'll match [], because
                      its empty!! So there should be a comment that collections must contain at least
                      one char to be seen as one.

                      issue 2)
                      With "\_" prepended the collection also includes the end-of-line - why does it exist, because
                      [\n] is accepted and works as expected?

                      So can \_[] syntax be deprecated?


                      Marc Weber

                      --
                      --
                      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+unsubscribe@....
                      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                    • Christian Brabandt
                      Hi Marc! ... Well, you need to prevent that expr-quote (:h expr-quote) is being evaluated. You need to escape the then. ... No. Please read again what I
                      Message 10 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Marc!

                        On Di, 19 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:

                        > I want Vim defaults to be
                        > - sane
                        > - follow the principle of least surprise.
                        > (I'd like nocompatible to be set by default, but that's another story)
                        >
                        > Christian: :set cpo+=l still makes my test cases fail:
                        > [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                        > [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze")

                        Well, you need to prevent that expr-quote (:h expr-quote) is being
                        evaluated. You need to escape the \ then.

                        > You explained it by \n not being chr(10), so what is it?

                        No. Please read again what I wrote. I am not going to repeat myself.

                        > Let's try by understanding \n's behaviour:
                        > ==========================================
                        >
                        > case 1) vim buf
                        > To my undestanding $ matches end of line (in a vim buffer) without eating that
                        > end of line whereas \n does both: it matches and eats the end of line.
                        > Eg try /..\n.. and :set hlsearch
                        >
                        > Thus \n is the same as $\n when applying regex to vim buffers. dos 1310 usually
                        > is encoded in a ff setting, so \n does what you want if you want it.
                        >
                        > case 2) matchstr, matchall, substitute =~ and whatnot (?)
                        >
                        > So if \n is not chr(10), what is it then in this case?
                        >
                        > echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                        >
                        > clearly indicates it matches \n and and I agree on Erik which called it this way
                        >

                        Vim internals do not distinguish between evaluating functions and
                        buffers. They work on matching a regular pattern on a string of text. In
                        Vim buffers, lines are distinguished in memory by NUL and that is the
                        only thing, that '.' does not match and so does [^\n] so that in a
                        buffer a search for /[^\n] will match any char (even control codes like
                        CR or LF)

                        What you want is, that in a text /[^\n] also does not match LF character
                        and that is what my patch provides thus it should do what you want.

                        > Is there more to fix?
                        > =====================
                        >
                        > issue 1)
                        >
                        > docs state:
                        > [] (with 'nomagic': \[]) */[]* */\[]* */\_[]* */collection*
                        > \_[]
                        >
                        > Well - try /[] - it will not be treated as collection, it'll match [], because
                        > its empty!! So there should be a comment that collections must contain at least
                        > one char to be seen as one.

                        I would call this a bug as well. I think, this should give an error.

                        > issue 2)
                        > With "\_" prepended the collection also includes the end-of-line - why does it exist, because
                        > [\n] is accepted and works as expected?
                        >
                        > So can \_[] syntax be deprecated?

                        Why is this an issue? I don't see a problem with \_ syntax at all.

                        Mit freundlichen Grüßen
                        Christian
                        --
                        Dem großen Publikum ist ein Buch nicht leicht zu schlecht, sehr
                        leicht aber zu gut.
                        -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

                        --
                        --
                        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+unsubscribe@....
                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                      • Marc Weber
                        ... Let me tell you. People get to know Vim. Vim is a tool to serve users. They want to edit text, get their job done (At least that s what I assume). For this
                        Message 11 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Why is this an issue? I don't see a problem with \_ syntax at all.
                          Let me tell you. People get to know Vim. Vim is a tool to serve users.
                          They want to edit text, get their job done (At least that's what I
                          assume). For this reason every construct such as \_ which requires you
                          to lookup help is going to take your time - time which should be spent
                          on the wiki or the homepage (yes - there is much to improve).

                          So from technical point of view there is nothing wrong: Something is
                          documentented, and it works as expected.

                          If you look at the ruby community there are some voices which
                          dislike some aspects about ruby: That there are so many ways to do
                          something ..

                          If you look at the whole ecosystem it is wrong, because its
                          wasting resources in many ways (human resources being the most
                          expensive ones). You may disagree on this - but its true.
                          The best docs are the ones you don't have to read.

                          I'm not proposing dropping it (if Vim was my projcet I'd do so - showing
                          an error message instead) - but maybe docs can be adjusted so that
                          people use [\n] and maybe even miss the Vim only special case on the
                          first glance.

                          Christian, thanks for your support.

                          Marc Weber

                          --
                          --
                          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+unsubscribe@....
                          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                        • Christian Brabandt
                          ... Attached is an updated patch, that also prevents /[] matching [] (a collation cannot be empty, so I think it should return an error and other vi clones do,
                          Message 12 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Di, 19 Feb 2013, Christian Brabandt wrote:

                            > On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:
                            > > I don't think that additional threads are going to help
                            > > There is an issue, and we should find a way to fix (IMHO).
                            > > Let me summarize again - and tell me if you feel differently.
                            > >
                            > > Test cases:
                            > > [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                            > > [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze"))
                            > >
                            > > I expect both do the same, the difference is that the second as chr(10) in [^],
                            > > while the first has \n (which should be translated to chr(10).
                            > >
                            > > However I obsorve that [2] returns 0 as expected , but [1] does return
                            > > 1, thus it matches \n even though I told Vim that I do not want to match
                            > > it. People told me this was because '.' is equal to [^\n].
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Current situation: at least to be fixed
                            > > 1:
                            > > No matter whether '.' should behave like [^\n]
                            > > [1] and [2] should behave the same, right?
                            > > 2:
                            > > This should be documented.
                            > > (Do you all at least agree these two statments?)
                            >
                            > Bram, here is a patch, making [^\n] not match NL within the text and
                            > that also documents, that '.' matches CR and LF within the text.
                            >
                            > This makes both [1] and [2] behave the same and seems to better match
                            > the users expectations.

                            Attached is an updated patch, that also prevents /[] matching []
                            (a collation cannot be empty, so I think it should return an error and
                            other vi clones do, also grep and perl throw an error).

                            Included are tests as well.

                            regards,
                            Christian
                            --
                            Sprachlexikon-Namen: GERRITT - gemütl. Schritt-Tempo b. Pferden

                            --
                            --
                            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+unsubscribe@....
                            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                          • Marc Weber
                            ... We should discuss whether /[] is a bug or feature. docs state that /[abc matches [abc by purpose (which could also be treated as error because there is no
                            Message 13 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > [..] patch, [..] prevents /[] matching []
                              > other vi clones do, also grep and perl throw an error).
                              :) You start comparing Vim against what other tools do.

                              We should discuss whether /[] is a bug or feature. docs state that /[abc
                              matches [abc by purpose (which could also be treated as error because
                              there is no closing ]. And I actually might agree on this being useful.

                              Marc Weber

                              --
                              --
                              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+unsubscribe@....
                              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                            • Ben Fritz
                              ... Sometimes the meaning is clearer. What if you re searching for a sequence of certain characters including newlines, where the first character is NOT a
                              Message 14 of 28 , Feb 19, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:38:56 PM UTC-6, MarcWeber wrote:
                                >
                                > So why should anybody write [^\n] if you can use '.'? So why make [^\n]
                                >
                                > behave the same way?

                                Sometimes the meaning is clearer.

                                What if you're searching for a sequence of certain characters including newlines, where the first character is NOT a newline?

                                I'd probably want to use:

                                /[^\n]\&[a-f0-9\n]\+

                                which is equivalent to, but clearer in meaning than:

                                /.\&[a-f0-9\n]\+

                                --
                                --
                                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+unsubscribe@....
                                For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                              • Erik Christiansen
                                ... Christian, many thanks for the work you have done, and for putting users first. It is heartily appreciated. The consolation may be small, but vim is now
                                Message 15 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 19.02.13 10:23, Christian Brabandt wrote:
                                  > Bram, here is a patch, making [^\n] not match NL within the text and
                                  > that also documents, that '.' matches CR and LF within the text.
                                  >
                                  > This makes both [1] and [2] behave the same and seems to better match
                                  > the users expectations.

                                  Christian, many thanks for the work you have done, and for putting users
                                  first. It is heartily appreciated.

                                  The consolation may be small, but vim is now consistent with awk:

                                  »
                                  . This matches any single character, including the newline character.

                                  « - xpdf gawk.pdf # "Effective AWK Programming"

                                  O'Reilly's "Mastering Regular Expressions" has it as varying between
                                  tools. (OK, we knew that. :-)

                                  Regards,
                                  Erik

                                  --
                                  The only thing worse than X Windows: (X Windows) - X

                                  --
                                  --
                                  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+unsubscribe@....
                                  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                • Bram Moolenaar
                                  ... This isn t right, there are no NL characters in the text. There are NUL characters which are stored as NL characters. That s an implementation detail,
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Christian Brabandt wrote:

                                    > Hi Marc!
                                    >
                                    > On Mo, 18 Feb 2013, Marc Weber wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > I don't think that additional threads are going to help
                                    > > There is an issue, and we should find a way to fix (IMHO).
                                    > > Let me summarize again - and tell me if you feel differently.
                                    > >
                                    > > Test cases:
                                    > > [1] echo len(matchstr("\n",'\zs[^\n]\ze'))
                                    > > [2] echo len(matchstr("\n","\\zs[^\n]\\ze"))
                                    > >
                                    > > I expect both do the same, the difference is that the second as chr(10) in [^],
                                    > > while the first has \n (which should be translated to chr(10).
                                    > >
                                    > > However I obsorve that [2] returns 0 as expected , but [1] does return
                                    > > 1, thus it matches \n even though I told Vim that I do not want to match
                                    > > it. People told me this was because '.' is equal to [^\n].
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Current situation: at least to be fixed
                                    > > 1:
                                    > > No matter whether '.' should behave like [^\n]
                                    > > [1] and [2] should behave the same, right?
                                    > > 2:
                                    > > This should be documented.
                                    > > (Do you all at least agree these two statments?)
                                    >
                                    > Bram, here is a patch, making [^\n] not match NL within the text and
                                    > that also documents, that '.' matches CR and LF within the text.
                                    >
                                    > This makes both [1] and [2] behave the same and seems to better match
                                    > the users expectations.

                                    This isn't right, there are no NL characters in the text. There are NUL
                                    characters which are stored as NL characters. That's an implementation
                                    detail, which sometimes becomes visible to the user.

                                    It's good to explain this in the docs. I'm not sure we actually should
                                    change the behavior, it might not really take away much confusion.


                                    --
                                    DENNIS: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
                                    watery tart threw a sword at you!
                                    "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY) PICTURES LTD

                                    /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- 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_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+unsubscribe@....
                                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                  • Marc Weber
                                    Hi Bram, thanks for joining the discussion and participating. echo len(nr2char(0)) returns 0, where is the 0 char stored as n .. So please take care about the
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Bram,

                                      thanks for joining the discussion and participating.

                                      echo len(nr2char(0))
                                      returns 0, where is the 0 char stored as \n ..
                                      So please take care about the use case: I'm not talking about buffers,
                                      I'm talking about matchstr, substitute etc and viml strings.

                                      I'm aware that both should be tested and documented which becomes clear
                                      reading my later summary.

                                      Anyway [^\n] matching \n is a very very unexpected behaviour.
                                      Having \_[ syntax doesn't make sense, either. Because [\n] works and is
                                      standard. And this should be visible in docs.

                                      Marc Weber

                                      --
                                      --
                                      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+unsubscribe@....
                                      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                    • Erik Christiansen
                                      ... Bram, is that meant to be There are NL characters which are stored as NUL characters ? Because if there are no NL characters in the text , then nothing
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Feb 20, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 20.02.13 13:32, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                                        > Christian Brabandt wrote:
                                        > > Bram, here is a patch, making [^\n] not match NL within the text and
                                        > > that also documents, that '.' matches CR and LF within the text.
                                        > >
                                        > > This makes both [1] and [2] behave the same and seems to better match
                                        > > the users expectations.
                                        >
                                        > This isn't right, there are no NL characters in the text. There are NUL
                                        > characters which are stored as NL characters.

                                        Bram, is that meant to be "There are NL characters which are stored as
                                        NUL characters"? Because if "there are no NL characters in the text",
                                        then nothing can be stored as them, can it?

                                        > That's an implementation detail, which sometimes becomes visible to
                                        > the user.

                                        OK, but the actual problem is corruption of a regex syntax snippet in
                                        one quoting context. Letting "[^\n]" not be the same as '[^\n]' is the
                                        mark of a broken regex implementation. Other regex engines manage \n
                                        without their syntax breaking, so it is possible with Vim too.

                                        Vim has '.' to represent "any character", and so does not require a
                                        second representation for that. But if [^\n] is the same as '.', because
                                        there are no newlines present, then that must _always_ be the case,
                                        regardless of a bit of quoting flim-flam.

                                        > It's good to explain this in the docs.

                                        Yes, knowing that there are no newlines can help us avoid looking for
                                        them.

                                        Another fix is needed, though, for the problem that quote flavour is
                                        allowed to corrupt the regex in one case, causing behaviour contrary to
                                        the quoted regex syntax. That is an illogicality boobytrap to torment
                                        the user.

                                        > I'm not sure we actually should change the behavior, it might not
                                        > really take away much confusion.

                                        Excuse me, Bram but removing the broken behaviour of "[^\n]" not being
                                        the same as '[^\n]' does remove a mind boggling logical nonsense, and so
                                        does do away with major confusion.

                                        Deep knowledge if Vim internals is an asset when it fosters effective
                                        and robust fixes, but tends toward a liability if it blinds one to the
                                        failings of a self-contradicting user interface, I think.

                                        In all that we construct, it is _what_ should happen which guides _how_
                                        it is made to happen. Arguments defending the current broken status
                                        repeatedly refer to _how_ usurping _what_, as an implementational
                                        side effect, and accepting that as a justification. That is not
                                        intelligent design, and has here led to impaired functionality.

                                        Vim's supremacy would be improved by removing the user interface
                                        deficiency.

                                        Erik

                                        --
                                        You have all eternity to be cautious in when you're dead.
                                        - Lois Platford

                                        --
                                        --
                                        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+unsubscribe@....
                                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.