Description: The documentation states "A search using a regular expression will work only within one paragraph. To search using a regular expression in more than one paragraph, do a separate search in each paragraph." THIS IS A BUG, not a feature, and needs to be fixed, since A REGULAR EXPRESSION MAY INCLUDE ONE OR MANY PARAGRAPH BREAKS. Obviously this is an archaic way of avoiding a bug, or limitation, that prevented the search feature from working correctly when CR/LFs were encountered. Steps to Reproduce: 1.Open help file:///C:/Program%20Files/LibreOffice/help/en-US/text/swriter/guide/search_regexp.html?&DbPAR=WRITER&System=WIN 2. Observe tip: "A search using a regular expression will work only within one paragraph. To search using a regular expression in more than one paragraph, do a separate search in each paragraph." 3. Fail. Because your intended search "Find" includes a line break in the middle. Actual Results: Search online in vain for a workaround. Find one AltSearch extension, 5 years out of date, unsupported on current LO version. Expected Results: I expect to be able to form a search term that is supported by MS Word and/or Notepad++. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: It should support searching an entire document even when regular expressions are used. Optimally it should support searching an entire document when using a Boost regular expression engine. At the very least it should support searching an entire document when using BASIC EXTENDED CODES, please see https://npp-user-manual.org/docs/searching/#extended-search-mode for examples. Also see https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus and https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/alternative-dialog-find-replace-for-writer
Created attachment 192440 [details] Notepad++ example of "Extended Mode" search Explained at https://npp-user-manual.org/docs/searching/#extended-search-mode
importance should be changed to major since this has been a problem for a substantial number of users for over two decades
(In reply to -t from comment #2) > importance should be changed to major since this has been a problem for a > substantial number of users for over two decades over 10 years, not 20 lol
Please don't set up your own reports as NEW, some else must do it, well except you are going to fix it.