World: r3wp

for the case when there are no numbers at all.

there is at least one. I f theres at least one, don't do any action. 
If there are two do one action and so on.

Ok, that should be ok then.

Man, I wish you could do:

	parse [1][integer! -1 skip]

and arrive back at the head of the input.

infinitive loop?

(infinite)

Another possible way:

>> parse [1 2 3 4 5] [any [set val number! pos: (if not tail? pos 
[print val])]]

Anton, you can do:
>> parse [9] [integer! to 1]
and arrive back at the beginning.

Oh yes! forgot about that. :) Great !

Can you explain this curious results ?

REBOL/View 1.3.2.3.1 5-Dec-2005 Core 2.6.3

>> parse [1 2 3 4][any [number! set val number!] (print val)]
4
== true
>> parse [1 2 3 4 5 ][any [number! set val number!] (print val)]
4
== false
>> parse [1 2 3 4 5 6][any [number! set val number!] (print val)]
6
== true

>> parse [1 2 3 4 5 6 7][any [number! set val number!] (print val)]
6
== false

>> parse [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8][any [number! set val number!] (print val)]
8
== true

note the results with odd numbers of items!

Forget my  question. I see that the block tries to consume two items.(

:)

'parse' is the path to great explorations and inventions - and also 
to great confusion and maybe despair. ;-)


No really, it can be a bit confusing at times, but I guess, it can't 
be done otherwise to have such great functionality. There's no short 
cut with 'parse'. Learning by doing is the way to go. And it's a 
brilliant tool!

So it is

parse [1 2 3 4 b 5][ some [ set val number! v:   number! :v (print 
val)]  to end (?? val)]

too late.(

Maybe someone will find this usefull:

count-word-frequency: func[
	"Counts word frequency from the given text"
	text [string!] "text to analyse"
	/exclude ex [block!] "words which should not be counted"
	/local counts f wordchars nonwordchars
][
	counts: make hash! 100000

 wordchars: charset [#"a" - #"z" #"A" - #"Z" "�������������̊�؎����ύ�Ѫ�"]
	nonwordchars: complement wordchars
	parse/all text [
		any nonwordchars
		any [
			copy word some wordchars (
				;probe word
				if any [not exclude none? find ex word][
					either none? f: find/tail counts word [
						repend counts [ word 1 ]
					][
						change f (f/1 + 1)
					]
				]
			)
			any nonwordchars
		]
	]
	counts: to-block counts
	sort/skip/compare/reverse counts 2 2
	new-line/skip counts true 2
]

If you know some other chars, which should be included in the words, 
please let me know, now it should be complete for czech language 
and hope that for spanish too (as I use it to count spanish words:).

found missing czech chars->  wordchars: charset [#"a" - #"z" #"A" 
- #"Z" "���������������̊�؎����ύ�Ѫ����"]

Is this a bug?
parse/all {"some words"} {" }
;== ["some words"]
parse/all {and "some words"} {" }
;== ["and" "some words"]
parse {and "some words"} {" }
;== ["and" "some" "words"]
parse {"some words"} {" }
;== ["some words"]

Good question! It's in a tough corner of REBOL - parsing. REBOL is 
in many ways more like a human language, than a computer language. 
Strictly speaking, you can argue, that those examples have a bug 
or two, but can you live with it? The behaviour might make it difficult 
to parse input strings, written by humans, because people write all 
sorts of things. (If it can go wrong, it will.)


Try change the quotation marks to something else and see the results 
change, like:

>> parse/all {Xsome wordsX}�{X }
== ["" "some" "words"]

parse, without a rule, treats quotes specially. this is to allow 
parse to be used directly with things like csv data.

I think it's a bug! I was trying to use this to divide large string 
to words and found that I have all sentences inside , instead of 
just words. It's problem only if you have the divider on the edge.

In the Geomol's example I would expect the result to be ["some" "words"] 
so it must be bug - it's inconsistent

this behavior is the one intended by Carl. so, it's so by design, 
and not a bug. but, you may try to convince Carl that you don't like 
it. ;)

I still think it's a bug - I cannot see the diference between parse 
and parse/all in this example. If Carl don't want to fix it, no problem 
for me, I used more complicated rule to do the same thing, just still 
think, it's a bug and it will confuse more people in the future as 
well.

but the true is, that in CSV is logical to have: parse {,d ,d} {,} 
== ["" "d" "d"]

and parse {,"a b, d"  ,d} {,} == ["" "a b, d" "d"]  (so probably 
Carl has true;-)

But it should be in documentation, that the quotes are very special 
characters for such a type of parsing!

There is also bug in doc: http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-15.html
(section 2 - Simple Splitting) -> there is sentence: "To avoid that 
action, you can use the /any refinement." where shoud be /all as 
there is no /any refinement in parse!

oldes, rambo the documentation problem.

done

.

I think it would be good to have some standard place for common parsing 
rules and charsets used in parse rules, like 'digits, 'spaces' and 
other, what do you thing?

I like the idea in theory, but what are standard parse rules ? There's 
an argument already - look, I'm arguing ! :)

I would prefer to call the "digit" rule "digits". Also, for this 
example, it's faster to define and be clear with it:
	digit: charset "0123456789"
than being abstract: (even though it would become well known):
	digit: system/parse/rules/digit

Oldes a regex context will be a good addition. Where regex are the 
basic rules for numbers, white space, *words* and their negations.

anton: I think, that any parse rule which don have to be global variable, 
but you can still the name used in parse block. But probably it would 
be a security issue

regex would be very nice

the problem with the idea is, that we are mixing code and parse rules

but at least spaces and digits could be used - it means charsets 
- which could be available during parse without need to define it 
all the time

(but it was just the idea how to improve the 'parse function)

Hmmm......

I've thought about that as well. There are some base charsets we 
could probably standardize on, and that would be good (IMO). Beyond 
a few basics, though, consensus gets tough.

The singular/plural argument seems easy, but isn't (IMO); DIGITS 
could be done as SOME DIGIT, and you could argue that things like 
2 DIGITS reads better, though 1 DIGITS does not. You could double-define 
it, but that gets ugly too. So, what about DIG? That doesn't imply 
any singularity, though it's a bit terse, and not a full word (or, 
rather, the wrong full word).

I'm all for proposing some basics though. Worst case, you can override 
them, which is no more work than we do today.

space/spc
whitespace/wsp
alpha
digit(s)
alpha-num	; should digit be num?
ctl/control
non-US-ASCII/high-ASCII
quoted-string
escaped-char    ; what is the escape though; REBOL ^, C \, etc.?

What other standard sets would we want?

II was sure I'd posted this just after Oldes' message.....But it 
ain't there now.....Maybe it's in the wrong group)
Andrew has a nice starter set:

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=common-parse-values.r

And I know he has extended that list extensively to include things 
like email address and URL

It would be great (again, IMO), if we had parse rules for REBOL datatypes. 
For those that want the power of block parsing, with the ability 
to load strings that aren't valid REBOL, it would be very handy.

Good starter set! I forgot about that. Thanks Sunanda.

the problem I find with block parsing is the rigid interpretation 
of datatypes.