World: r3wp

teaching

;-)

Maxim, your first big code works for me on Linux R2.

ok, so its definitely somethings screwy with his c&p on that system

That is a distinct possibility.

I tested on 
View 2.7.7.4.2  (latest)
View 2.7.6.4.2  (long time favourite prior version)
View 1.3.2.4.2  (much older version)

Ways to identify the problem:

- In AltME, copy Max's entire post which contains the code. You can 
do this with a right click when no text is selected in the message.

  Switch to the rebol console and type:   checksum read clipboard:// 
     and tell us what you get.

- Then you can also type:  print mold read clipboard://    and examine 
what is printed carefully.

- Try to reproduce the problem with shorter code and shorter input. 
Two lines of input should do.

(I don't always see consistent behaviour with AltME and rebol on 
linux, by the way.)

(With regards to the clipboard, anyway.)

I copied Max's big message containing the big code.
>> checksum read clipboard://
== 2842420

maxim thank a lot it's works perfectly ;-) . yesterday i was tried 
i think

cool

{Number : 10017
Name       : Disable Message Partner
Application: MXS
Severity   : Info
Type       : Alarm Event
Date-Time  : 20/09/10 12:40:57
GMT        : Mon Sep 20 10:40:57 2010
Text       :
Message Partner AlertsNagios - Disabled}

maxim just a last question

the last token is Text but the message is after a newline. how to 
take it with your parse rules

just for your information. i try this to parse error message of a 
swift alliance server

and check it with nagios

you can replace the ":" rule with this:

		; end of token
		[
			
			[":" spaces newline]
			|
			":"
				
		]

but if you ever have a token without data, the whole parsing will 
fail, cause this rule will effectively (try to)  load the next token 
as data.

obviously we could alter the rules again to account for data-less 
tokens, but this would require a bit different structure.

great working ;-)

oops... in the above text...    " this rule"   should read..  "the 
next rule"

if you have time to show me how i am ok. but for now i must take 
my children to school and go to work. thanks a lot again

basically you have to create two complete (& and alternate) rule 
structures. and separate them with an "|" .


but you have to be sure that the first rule doesn't "pre-empt" the 
second one.... meaning that the first rule must not also match the 
second rule, or else, you will never reach the second rule.

for example..

some [["a" | "aa"]]


here we will never reach "aa" because "a" will be satisfied and the 
alternative will never be attempted ... so instead of matching "aa" 
you'd always match "a" twice .

where as specifying [some ["aa" | "a"]]  will always match "aa" IF 
there is still more than one "a" to parse... and will only ever reach 
"a" if the sequence is an odd number of "a" characters (or just one, 
obviously).


so "aaaa"  will match the "aa" rule twice, and "aaa"  will  match 
 "aa" then "a" .

IMHO, this is the basic premise of all of parse.   once you really 
understand how this applies to a rule which has sub rules... you 
really understand parse.... and then you can start doing more funky 
stuff.

Ladislav, your use-rule is effectively the same implementation that 
I had in mind when I made the USE operation proposal in the first 
place, but mezzanine instead of native. With the same overhead that 
made Carl initially reject the proposal when they were being implemented. 
I'm glad that you are making more headway towards getting him to 
accept it this time :)

Actually, both variants are implemented, even the one without the 
overhead (which I implemented first).

(or, to be more precise, maybe there is a possibility to make a variant 
not binding the rule at all, which would then deserve to be called 
"without the overhead" rather than any of my variants)

But, as you said, one of my motivations was to write it as a mezzanine 
to have some "inspiration"/experiences with it for Carl.

, since I guess, that this way, he will not have to just go into 
an "unknown territory"

I must say, that I was actually surprised, how people (including 
me) have struggled to circumvent this problem, while having such 
an elegant way available to solve it.

a regex question ...  ([0-9]{4})(-([0-9]{2})(-([0-9]{2})(T([0-9]{2}):([0-9]{2})(:([0-9]{2})(\.([0-9]+))?)?(Z|(([-+])([0-9]{2}):([0-9]{2}))))))

is apparently failing this string : 2010-10-18T07:06:25.00Z

What tool can I use to check this string against this regex ?

Regexlib has a different ISO-8601 date matching regex:
    http://regexlib.com/REDetails.aspx?regexp_id=2092

And the ability to enter any regex and target strings to test what 
happens:
    http://regexlib.com/RETester.aspx?

found this one too http://www.fileformat.info/tool/regex.htm

and it seems my string is passing ... hmm

The problem with regexes is they are impossible to debug.....Best 
just to rewrite continually until they work :)

I'm trying to validate some XML against an online validator and it's 
rejecting my dates :(

how do you specify an element to be of the type any-type! except 
none! ?

I am afraid, that you need to list all types excluding none

does R3 solve this? if not, maybe that would be a good problem to 
solve.

R3 can let you define that typeset and use it any time you like

ok, that is possibly good enough for generating specs.

I don't remember what all we did Henrik, but some of our test generation 
stuff on another world had some support for typesets IIRC.

Gregg, ok

Henrik, with a parse rule ?

Steeve, yes.

R3 does it

Graham, try http://gskinner.com/RegExrfor working out regexes. It 
has a really nice UI where you can hover over the components of the 
regex and see exactly what they do.