World: r3wp

:-)

Of course mine doesn't handle words with apostrophes or hyphens in 
them either. Easy fix though, just add ' and - to the capitals charset.

Actually my further spec for this requires the parser to detect spaces 
between capitalised words :)

And do what?

treat the two capitalised words as one so <strong>HELLO DOLLY</strong>

What about "HELLO, DOLLY!" or such?

I think that punctuation is part of a word

For that matter, what about words in quotes?

only if capitalised

So, no difference.

I'll explain the purpose of all this.

A person is writing a text file.  It has headings which are denoted 
by caps, and terminating in ":".

But some headings are two or more words ... with the last terminating 
in ":" only.

Words inside the text, even in caps should not normally be highlighted.

that's the more complete spec.

Anyway, i have a working version now :)

Well, I hope I helped :)

Yep .. thanks all.

replace/all "</strong> <strong>" ""

What is the best description of Parse?  I would like to point some 
people to Parse as an example of the power of Rebol

reichart, I wrote one in the wikibook, don't know if it's useful.

Since you wrote one, do you know of a better one?  This is not a 
reflection on yours, but it is a great way to know what you considered 
the next best thing.

salvation from regular expressions

I may have added some the the rebol wikibook

To use the simpler of the CS terms:


Parse is a rule-based, recursive-descent string and structure parser 
with backtracking. It is not a parser generator (like Lex/Yacc) or 
compiler (like most regex engines) - the engine follows the rules 
directly. Since Parse is recursive-descent it can handle patterns 
that regular expressions wouldn't be able to. Since Parse backtracks 
it can handle patterns that ordinary recursive-descent parsers can't.


Basically, it puts the text and structure processing abilities of 
Perl 5 to shame, let alone those of the lesser regex engines.


In theory, Perl 6 has caught up with REBOL, but Perl 6 only exists 
in theory for now. By the time it becomes actual REBOL should surpass 
it (especially if I have anything to say about it).

It's pretty easy to demonstrate patterns that regular expressions 
can't handle. It's only somewhat difficult to demonstrate patterns 
that can't be handled by a recursive descent parser without backtracking 
or unlimited lookahead.


I have never run into a pattern that can't be handled by Parse in 
theory - its only limits are in implementation (available memory 
and recursion depth). I am not qualified to describe its limits. 
Still, you have to be careful about how you write the rules or they 
will trip you up.

A little dry as explanations go, I suppose. You may get better luck 
by showing some magic parse code tricks :)

Somewhat buzzy: Its a simplified compiler-compiler. Could be used 
to build a java-compiler (eg such complex syntax), but its also as 
easy as regex for simpler things. But still readable. (less buzzy: 
not always that easy due to the poorer lockahead).

Volker, it's more like it can do what a compiler-compiler can do 
without needing to compile :)

And backtracking is about the same as unlimited lookahead, but more 
powerful.

Thanks Brian, but as is the theme with questions I ask, I don't ask 
for myself, but rather that the "world" can learn what "we" know. 
 So perhaps you should add your 2 cents to Henriks, and Tom's in 
a public forum of the Wikibook.

the compiling is no big argument  as compiler-compilers are for compiled 
languages anyway ;) the point is, you can mix a grammar and actions 
for semantics easy.

Reichart, I figured as much (hence the "dry" comment). I'll look 
over the Wikibook and see if I can help.

Your points are ok,only wanted to try somewhat shorter

Volker, it still might be a good point that you can skip a step with 
parse, depending on the listener. Parse is more of a compiler-interpreter 
really. The real point I was making was about the lookahead.

I can plug in handcrafted parsers with some cocos too.

I agree brian parrse allows you to write interpreter easily. Regarding 
compilation I guess it does that too. But the problem is more difficult.

aah. a compiler-compiler produces sourcecode to be compiled, but 
you can interpret data with it.

Most compiler-compilers have fixed lookahead. Bactracking is equivalent 
to unlimited lookahead.

i guess that depends on the coco. the point is, a bnf by default, 
and code inside therules, instead of putting things in vars andprocess 
later. IMHO.

Jaimie, I meant that parse is itself an interpreter, not a compiler. 
It interprets compiler specs (or interpreter specs, etc.).

Volker, I've used a lot of compiler-compilers before and reviewed 
many more, and unlimited lookup or backtracking are rare.

Brian, In this you are right, is an parse is an interpreter that 
allows easy construction of other interpreter, which the emphasis 
on DSLs.

then the advantages of parse are beeing like a compiler-compiler 
and habving unlimited lookup etc?

Yup :)

I'm not sure whether not having a seperate tokenizer is a plus or 
a minus, though.

I guess you could think of block parsing as using load as a tokenizer.

IMHO that would add overhead for the simple things.

and you can use parse to tokenize first?

Two rounds of parsing, one for tokenizing and one to parse? Interesting. 
That would work if you don't have control over the source syntax 
- otherwise load works pretty well for simple languages.

Thats where i got the idea: tokenize first and use block-parser :)