World: r3wp

indeed, i'm nice

:)

have to add #"'" ie. ' to the letter charset

#"-" too and what with the numbers ?

for #"'" you should add a rule to remove spaces

Mine was meant so I cold make pretty texts with all upper case in 
some search engine.. maybe it doesn't work that great in all cases..

smart-uc-after: func [ str sep ] [

 parse str [ ANY [ thru sep mark: ( uppercase/part trim mark 1 insert 
 mark " " ) :mark ] ]
	str
] 

smart-case: func [ str ] [
	calc-with X [ 	
		[ lowercase str ]
		[ uppercase/part X 1 ]
		[ smart-uc-after X "." ]
		[ smart-uc-after X "?" ]
		[ smart-uc-after X "!" ]
]]
>> smart-case "HI HOW ARE YOU! we will go. bye!"
== "Hi how are you! We will go. Bye! "

numbers aren't usually part of words.  Unless it's trademark like 
3M

but mine is also worse because it does 3 parses instead of one like 
Steeve

calc-with: func [ 'wrd bs ] [  foreach b bs [ set wrd do b ] ] ; 
it uses this func also

Stevee's looks faster :)

yes, I agree :)

this is the rule for #"-" 
| #"'" any clean word

with that you supress unwanted spaces.
it'  s a good day
 --> "it's a good day"

so don't add ""'" as a vali

d letter

ahh ...

do as you want... :-)

trailing "." or "," gets lost

Also, I think have to add ' to the letter charset because words ending 
in s can have a trailing ' for possession ...

but what if they have inserted a space after or before '

so, Miles' wallet and not Miles's wallet

hum ok, but you could handle that specif case with a different rule

of course, for the trailing #".", just add 
| #"." end

or better change the rule: 
| #"." any clean [end | space capital opt word]

parse is just amazing for such simple grammar.
A simple add and it's doing all you want.

Have I found a parse bug?

1)

>> parse/all {zybc} [ some ["b" break | "y"  break | skip] copy result 
thru "c" (print result)]
bc
== true

2)

>> parse/all {zybc} [ some ["b" break| "y"  break | skip] copy result 
thru "c" (print result)]
** Script Error: break| has no value

** Near: parse/all "zybc" [some ["b" break| "y" break | skip] copy 
result thru "c" (print result)]

3)

>> parse/all {zybc} [ some ["b" break | "y"  break| skip] copy result 
thru "c" (print result)]
== false


Such stupid bugs are really making the testing process difficult. 
I wondered at least 5 minutes, why the result of case 3 was wrong, 
and then I tried to add space behind the second break, and the code 
was corrected. How is that second break| does not report error? ;-)

3) is like 2)  you put a | to close of the second break. I noticed 
on rebol 2 strange reactions with find multi-case too

in rebol 2  for example if you do if  not find str any ["!" ";" ] 
that will work if you have str with "!" in it but not with ";" but 
if you invert the position of your find argument like this [";" "!"] 
then you detect when str have ";" in it but not when it have "!" 
in it

>> str: "tot!;"
== "tot!;"
>> if not find str any["!" ";"] [ print "found it!!"]
== none
>> str: "tot;"
== "tot;"
>> if not find str any["!" ";"] [ print "found it!!"]
found it!!

Shadwolf - but that is your bug ;-) Simply put, you try to mix parse-like 
behaviour with how 'any behaves. 'any and 'all are just functions, 
so in the case of 'any it returns any true condition match, so any 
["!" ";"] always returns "!", because it is evaluated as 'true.

... so the code above behaves correctly, because in the second case 
your string does not contain "!"

Pekr, try to run your 2) and 3) in trace mode, you'll see that there's 
no bug, parse rules evaluation looks consistent to me.

In 3), the second 'break| doesn't report error because it's never 
evaluated. The rule fails on the first input character when trying 
to match "y" and 'skip is never reached. In 2), 'skip helps consuming 
the input until the "y" character which leads to evaluate 'break| 
and raises the error.

yes, you might be right doc. But - it is really very difficult to 
track down for user. It almost looks like scanner bug, but it is 
not. What actually happens in the case 3) is, that "break|" is being 
considered a regular word, which just does not have value. Stating 
that, it also means that 'skip is not part of OR expression. So, 
'some block fails on not matching "y" ....

Here's a parse question for the experts.

If I have a document with headings eg. a: b: .. z: and text optionally 
under each heading ... would it be possible to use parse to collect 
all the text from each heading if the headings are in any order and 
some headings with no text are optionally missing?

Each heading can only occur once in the document.

sure

Ok, let me rephrase that .. sure it's possible, but I can imagine 
it would be quite complicated

now was that a question of the "can you give me the solution" kind?

actually it can be done quite simply... depends on the headers themselves...

It's a little complicated because the headers can have spaces in 
them.

spaces add no complication to the system, as long as the headers 
can be identified without doubt.

so the rule is :

headers start on new line, stop at first ":" 
all the rest is content?

now if you have a rule
copy text [ to "a:" | to "b:" .... ] 

but if b: occurs before a: in the text, then you will include a header 
in copied text

forget to and thru... they are not proper parsing.

yes, headers start on a newline and terminate in ":"

and there can be no ":" within the content?

No, there can be a ":" in the content

but you know what the headers are ... so that's not a big problem.