World: r3wp

in parse, CHANGE is a shortcut for REMOVE INSERT.

>> parse s: "(1)" [change "(1)" "()"] ?? s
s: "())"

Should give the same result than:

>> parse s: "(1)" [remove "(1)" insert "()"] ?? s
s: "()"

It clearly behaves as 'change func ...

I have a headache to find out, how 'change behaves in REBOL itself. 
Now if the parse version is supposed to behave even differently, 
then I am completly lost without the trial and error aproach in console, 
and it totally sucks ...

it's not behaving the same way, if it was the same, we would not 
have this difference:

>> parse s: "(1)." [change "(1)" "(11)"] ?? s
s: "(11)."

>> head change "(1)." "(11)"
== "(11)"

In parse it's a change/part that is performed

And as such, is correct, no?

>> head change/part "(1)." "(11)" 3
== "(11)."

yep a change/part not a simple change

damned, altme playing on my nerves ... another message lost ....

You are right, it is most probably a bug:

>> head change/part "(1)" "()" 3
== "()"

>> parse s: "(1)" [change "(1)" "()"] s
== "())"

Ladislav, you are right, the revised rule passes my tests: [(p: 0) 
any [#"(" (++ p) | #")" if (1 <= -- p)] if (p = 0)]

Actually, Steeve, the behavior of parse's change does have to do 
with the behavior of change in normal code. That would be an error 
if the CHANGE/part function had that same behavior. It's a bug.

i don't understand what you mean, anyway change in parse has a bug 
:-)

What a mess...

digit: charset "0123456789"
num: [some digit opt [#"." any digit]] 
term: [num | #"(" any lv1 term #")" | #"-" any lv3 term]
calc: [(expr: do expr) stay insert expr (probe e)]
lv4: [
	remove [copy expr [term change #"%" " // " term]] calc
]
lv3: [
	any lv4 
	remove [copy expr [term change #"^^" " ** "any lv4 term]] calc
]
lv2: [
	any lv3 
	remove [copy expr [term change #"*" " * " any lv3 term]] calc
	| remove [copy expr [term change #"/" " / " any lv3 term]] calc
]
lv1: [
	any lv2 
	remove [copy expr [term change #"+" " + " any lv2 term]] calc
	| remove [copy expr [term change #"-" " - " any lv2 term]] calc
]

>> parse probe e: "2+3*2-(-2^^4/6)/2" [some lv1]

2+3*2-(-2^^4/6)/2
2 + 6-(-2^^4/6)/2
8-(-2^^4/6)/2
8 - (-16.0/6)/2
8 - (-2.66666666666667)/2
8 - -1.33333333333334
9.33333333333334


I think i can make that more clean if only the commands AND, CHANGE 
(bugged)  was available.

steeve nice way to make a quick and fun use of parse ...
I never thought about it

steeeve example should be teached to kids in any schools :P hihihihihihi

i like this example it's short and has many of the parse  features. 
Even if I'm not able to precisely understand how it works i can sense 
globaly that he inserted in his main rule 4 depth parsing level using 
sub rules. He stores sub result of each depth. Each depth is then 
computed and it's result it's passed to the upper level. that's nice 
really ...

Steeve - you used STAY, which is gonna be removed :-) At least Carl 
said so on R3 Chat, it is also as well reflected in updated Parse 
proposal document ...

INTO is marked as being implemented too ... nice ....

I hope we get rest too ... USE, OF, LIMIT look all interesting.

BrianH: has Carl noticed n BREAK? It is not in priority list, and 
it could escape Carl's radar, no?

I added it to the priority list too ....

Re N Break: I don't think, that even Break is "organic" to Parse, 
N Break is even more of a mess

And you all missed my (N Fail) proposal.

I just rewrote the math expressions resolver.

digit: charset "0123456789"
num: [some digit opt [#"." any digit]] 
term: [num | #"(" any lv1 term #")" | #"-" any lv3 term]
calc: [
	remove [copy num1 term copy op skip copy num2 term]
	(expr: do reform select [
		"+"  [num1 op num2]
		"-"  [num1 op num2]
		"*"  [num1 op num2]
		"/"  [num1 op num2]
		"^^" [num1 "**" num2]
		"%"  [num1 "//" num2]
		
	] op)
	stay insert expr (probe e)
]
lv4: [term #"%" term then fail | break | calc]
lv3: [any lv4 term #"^^" any lv4 term then fail | break | calc]

lv2: [any lv3 term [#"*" | #"/"] any lv3 term then fail | break | 
calc]

lv1: [any lv2 term [#"+" | #"-"] any lv2 term then fail | break | 
calc]

I just think it's more clear like that.
Moreover, it's prepared to use the further AND command.

Because this nasty trick i use:
[rule THEN FAIL | BREAK | calc]
will be replaced by:
[AND rule calc]

What is your take on simple mode parsing? It is handy for simple 
CSV parsing, and the idiom is common:

parse/all row ";"


The trouble is, that if there is no data in last column, parse mistakenly 
makes the resulting block shorter, so you have to use common idiom:

rec: parse/all append row  ";" ";"

I always wondered, if it could be regarded being a parse bug?

I wonder now if PARSE could automatically discern newlines, rather 
than having to deal with that in your parser. It would be cool, if 
strings could be considered line-based without specifically having 
to code for that.

PARSE/LINES ? Maybe not.

what would be the advantage?

btw - remember we have deline/enlice natives in R3 now ...

enline

those should replace read/lines iirc

the advantage would be to avoid skipping newlines. now that I think 
of it, you don't want it if you want to parse across a newline, but 
you wouldn't do that for CSV parsing.

enline and deline will help somewhat.

well, my argument seems to be weak. but now the idea is there for 
further study. :-)

Ladislav - in comment to ticket #1248, you write:


According to the documentation, that can be found in http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Parse_Project

parse "b" [not #"a"]


yields FALSE correctly. If you want to obtain TRUE, you can try e.g.:

parse "b" [not #"a" to end] 


My question is - what it the advantage to actually not advance the 
input on the rule match? It does not look natural and I would expect 
it to match the rule and hence move past it:

>> parse "b" [not #"a" ??]
end!: "b"
== false

... as can be seen, it does not advance ...

i see, but it's impossible to advance i guess.

NOT (as a pre-rule) is applied on the result of the following rule.
So, #"a" failed (it's not advancing at all).
Then, NOT #"a", reverse the state result.
FAIL become MATCH. That's all

What is the advantage?:


1) by not consuming input this would be a direct inversion of the 
rule. Example:

    parse ""a" [not end ...]


is a meaningful rule, and it is quite trivial to see, that any rule 
consuming input would not be a direct inversion of this rule.


NOT SOMETHING actually means, that at the current input position 
the SOMETHING rule shall not match. That does not give us any information, 
that NOT should skip any input (how far should it?).

2) This version of NOT is compatible with PEG

3) It is consistent with the AND operation:

   [AND rule] is equivalent to [NOT [NOT rule]]

Yet another example:


    [NOT skip] is equivalent to the [END] rule and is meaningful only, 
    when NOT does not skip any input

...I would expect it to match the rule and hence move past it...

 - that is trivially wrong. If the RULE matches, the [NOT RULE] cannot 
 match, therefore it cannot even advance. The only case, when (theoretically) 
 we could think of advancing is, when the rule does not match. But 
 then, it is not known, how far.

Some may prefer Steeve's explanation, which looks very good to me.

pekr, I had the same initial reaction, then realized that it would 
not be consistent wrt fail or no fail... when NOT would succeed a 
match (and fail the rule), the input would be beyond what the not 
is usefull for.


when I started thinking about it,  if you really want you can simply 
use a set word/get word pair to advance when the not finds a match 
to ignore a rule, but then its like not using 'NOT in the first place, 
so its pointless  :-)

not advancing NOT is not that much useful imo. I know that it can't 
be technically done, but anyway ...

Guys, i think your opinion about NOT is a little harsh.

In the case of complementing  a charset, you just have to SKIP after 
the NOT rule.
In the other cases, not advancing is of better use. 

At least that's what I see while rewriting some scripts as I do now.

The case is, that advancing can't be done in fact. It is just some 
psychological apsect, which leads some of us to think, that the output 
should be advanced, because we are looking for the complementing 
feature ...

Ok but could you give a case (other than complemented charsets which 
can be easly skiped) where you found that advancing is more convenient 
with a complemented rule.

I mean, i can't conceive that such complemented rule would be actually 
easier to read.

Or easier to write...

Skip is very slow compared with complemented charsets.

If you are parsing a string skip only advances one character at a 
time. When I wrote make-word-list for rebol.org using a complemented 
charset gave a big performance improvement.


Though you may be able to suggest better ways to optimise it - http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=make-word-list.r

I can have a look, but the purpose of NOT is not to have better perfs 
than complemented charset, but to allow some simplification when 
writing rules.

Actually, It's the case of most other improvements, easier to write, 
not inevitably faster.

And don't forget that safe complemented charset in R3 are a pain 
in the ass to construct, because of UTF-8

Which is why I was dissapointed that I apparently misunderstood from 
Carl's blog:


Changes that are critical, but not highly complicated. For example, 
providing a NOT command seems easy enough, and it is now critical 
because using complemented charsets is problematic (due to the Unicode 
enhancements).