8 May
2012
8 May
'12
7:20 a.m.
Richard Fuchs writes:
Understood. I've originally thought it was simply
a bug because it
didn't do what I'd expected, but I guess it's an old design decision.
Thanks for clarification. Maybe for 3.4 then :)
i don't see any problem with this design decision because all results
are obtainable with it. it does not matter to me if it is compatible
with sed/perl or whatever. if it matters to you, for 3.4 you are
welcome to introduce another mode of repl_exp behavior as long as the
current one remains the default.
-- juha