This fixes #70. I am surprised that this hasn't come up before, however, so I would love someone else to confirm that this doesn't break cases I haven't tested. Maybe I only noticed it because I have turned textwidth back to my normal value.
Part of the previous formatlistpat regex doesn't appear to match what I think it should. Specifically this: [+-\\*]. That is supposed to match one of +, -, or *. However when I run that on my own vim v8.0, it does not. That double escape I think is supposed to become either [+-*] or [+-\*]. When I try to run it via / it doesn't match what I expect. I think that it is interpreting - as a range operator or something funky like that.
This appears to correct the problem for me, though I haven't run it against your goldens.
This fixes #70. I am surprised that this hasn't come up before, however, so I would love someone else to confirm that this doesn't break cases I haven't tested. Maybe I only noticed it because I have turned
textwidthback to my normal value.Part of the previous
formatlistpatregex doesn't appear to match what I think it should. Specifically this:[+-\\*]. That is supposed to match one of+,-, or*. However when I run that on my own vim v8.0, it does not. That double escape I think is supposed to become either[+-*]or[+-\*]. When I try to run it via/it doesn't match what I expect. I think that it is interpreting-as a range operator or something funky like that.This appears to correct the problem for me, though I haven't run it against your goldens.