In article <mailman.1001607930.24098.python-list@[...].org> ,
Skip Montanaro  <skip@[...].com>  wrote:
> 
> You'll generally never cook up complex regular rexpressions using
> incremental search because you have no convenient way to correct mistakes
> and retry, but you will use all the pieces and build up more complex stuff
> when you're programming Perl or Python.  Making the leap from Emacs's
> old-style re's to POSIX-style re's as Perl and Python use now is fairly
> straightforward.  Mostly it involves getting rid of backslashes and learning
> about {m,n}, \d, \s and other little shortcuts.  (I still almost never use
> \d.  My fingers just type [0-9] automatically.)
> 
> maybe-the-best-argument-against-vi-ly, yr's

Actually, what I usually do with vi is open up another editor window to
write my regex and then cut'n'paste to the window where I'm doing real
work.  That way I *do* have a convenient way to correct mistakes in
complex regexes.  Here's a cutie:

:s/(\([0-9][0-9][0-9]\)) *\([0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]\)/\1-\2/
-- 
                      --- Aahz  <*>   (Copyright 2001 by aahz@pobox.com)

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista   

We must not let the evil of a few trample the freedoms of the many.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list