bug#9681: Broken behaviour of re-search-backward (.+ matching only a single character)

[Johan Bockgård]

Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:

> If this curious inconsistency of `re-search-backward' with
> `re-search-forward' is intentional (which I hope it is not), it should
> be documented, but I couldn't find anything in the manuals or
> docstrings.

Then you must not have looked very hard.