World: r3wp

What about a new word “all” which would allow  to parse several successives 
conditions whatever their order  ?

parse [a: 1 b: 2] [all ['a: integer! | 'b: integer!]] would be true 
only if it exists successivly [a: integer!] and [b: integer! ] whatever 
their order

need it

Umm...I'm not really a parser but


parse [a: 1 b: 2] [set-word! integer! set-word! integer!] returns 
true.

yeah but what ? if the entry is [b:2 a:  1] instead

hum sorry, it works too

but if the entry is more complex like [a: 1 huge tight  b: 1] and 
that i want parse all this values in any order ?

and in your example , you don't test that we must encounter 'a and 
'b

i give another one example , more simple

i want to parse the serie "ABC" but it could be the serie "BCA" , 
"CBA" , "ACB" ... any combination

so if i could write parse "ABC" [all ["A" | "B" [ "C" ]]  , it should 
be more simple

Again, I'm not a parser, but parse's support of alternates with some 
and any covers these cases no?

no

if you write  parse "AB" [some ["A" |  "B" | "C"]]

parse "ABC" [ 0 1 "A" | 0 1 "B" | 0 1 "C"] ?

you get a true answer, but that not the case

I think I'm clue'in to what you mean.  I'll leave this to the pros... 
 :)

like my use of 0 1 can be opt...  :)

anyway, you're example just don't work ^^

*anyway your example just doesn't work (fewwww)

Yep.  I'm out.  Not experienced enough to have piped up...  ;)

and what is your mater ? ;-)

we can talk of rebcode if you want :-)

Thinking about this one, you'd have to repeat all the alternatives. 
 Defeating the purpose...but I'll bet Chris or Geomol or Anton or... 
will have a workable solution posted before ya know it.

i h'ave many alternatives (all comsuming lot of code)  that's not 
the point, i just think it could be more elegant to have such a command

Maybe we could hold side bets on which rebol will come up with the 
solution first...I'd put money down on Oldes or Volker giving you 
a workable  :)

if you say so, i  tried many alternatives, but they are all uggly

try this... parse "AB" [some ["A" |  "B" | "C"] | none 
]

i don't want to parse "AB" but any combinations of "ABC"

His works.  I tried it without the terminating  | none  and it spun 
out, so I didn't mention it  :)

parse "AB" sould return false

not true

why would AB return false?

so it must be three characters?

because i want parse the complete serie "ABC" in any combination

yes 3 characters

What it you put 1 repeats inside the some?

write it plz

nevermind...  just tried it.   piping up out of turn again  :)

i just don't understand what you mean

ah ok, it doesn't work :-)

do all three characters need to be present?

I tried  parse "AB" [some [1 "A" | 1 "B" | 1 "C"] | none]   ...returns 
true

or can characters be duplicated?

no Brock

the | none handles situations where the rule doesn't apply, so almost 
everything will return true

Brock;  Without it it'll endless loop no?

no

just never use an ''opt" rule in a some or any block

will it just be instances of A B & C?

one instance of each in any order (but just one instance)

the awaiting result is 
a: b: c: false

parse "CAB" [some ["A" (a: true) | "B" (b: true) | "C" (c: true)]] 
if all [a b c ] [print "ok"]