Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> And Thomas just imitated "xfuncname", which just so happens to be without
> an "_".
Then again I ignored the 'x' for "extended regex", so it's not
entirely consistent.
[Mostly because I think the user expects a "<something>" whenever
there's an "x<something>", and "funcname" is actually deprecated/not
documented any more, so introducing a basic-regex version seemed
silly.]
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
