World: r3wp

Anyway, I'm not very interested in the super estoeric algorithms 
but do note that people get upvoted significantly for small solutions 
in languages like J: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language)

if each new word always begin with a capital letter, you don't have 
anymore the problem.
You just lost the compression of the ":" char. Not a so huge loss

Problem is that single character words play a huge part in this

Every variable in your program in most cases will be only one letter.

So what ?
3A

ABC
 would mean [A B C] with this new system

and changing the case of text is something that can be relegated 
to a good editor :)

g~$ in vim, to switch case for everything from the cursor to the 
end of line

Well you're free to work out an example of a better dialect but you'll 
be parsing URLs or something... like where I can do Ab to get a: 
b how would you get it?

A:B

>> type? A:B
== url!

You're starting to tread on the question of taking away things and 
making a non-superset

And you added a character :)

Yes i added a character

but i don't have to take care of the correct alternation of uppercases

A character here, a character there... pretty soon you're talking 
about real whitespace!  :)

:-)

Implementation gets trickier if you're parsing urls, and you're impinging 
on the URL type at that point, which is an any-string and thus does 
give meaning to case.

My goal was to only muck with words, which Rebol binding has promised 
to ignore

Er, ignore case

There are other issues:

>> 'A:B
** Syntax error: invalid "word-lit" -- "A:B"
** Near: (line 1) 'A:B

>> 'AB:      
** Syntax error: invalid "word-lit" -- "'AB:"
** Near: (line 1) 'AB:

hey ! your parser is the weak point, it seems :-)

>> unmush ['aB]
== ['a b:]

>> unmush ['aB]
== ['a b:]

That's the Rebol parser.  I'm not taking strings as input, I'm taking 
Rebol blocks.  It's a dialect.

If I were taking strings, sky's the limit... but, what's the point?

it doesn't bother, parse has not the limitations you pointed

>> parse ['AB:] [to end]
** Syntax error: invalid "word-lit" -- "'AB:"
** Near: (line 1) parse ['AB:] [to end]

>> parse {'AB:} [to end]
== true

what is the interest to try to construct something which has no sense 
in Rebol

'AB: has no meaning

I'm just playing devil's advocate for your suggestion to go putting 
colons in the input when the goal is to minimize source representation.

I showed you my answer to get ['a b:] in a brief notation

>> unmush ['aB]
== ['a b:]

From 5 chars down to 3, and it's legal to the Rebol parser.

ok i understand, i just proposed to avthe burden caused by a safe 
alternance of letter's casing

avthe=avoid

Following some thoughts of Christoph Budzinski back in December, 
I wrote a short article on an approach to REBOL code golf last month......It 
takes quite a different approach to yours. But as it was never published, 
your approach must have priority :)

What I suggested in the article was:


  1. we create a private group here to thrash out the principles and 
  practicesl then launch a set of REBOL code golf challenges


  2. current code golf is seriously flawed as it counts characters 
  not lexical elements:
        variable1: variable1 + variable2
       is much better  code than:
         v1: v1 + v2
       and should have the same golf score

3. in REBOL, the First Rule of Code Golf is:
       Parse always wins

  (this has been empirically observed over many REBOL code challenges)

Well, I understand the concern, but I didn't do it just to be weird. 
 :)

only to save ":" what a tremendeous gain !!! :-)

Stevee: But my point is you're forgetting the spaces, which are needed 
too, since colons cannot appear in words.

i agree for saving spaces

Look at the Roman Numerals program [rSfeCs[Nse[i1v5x10l50c100d500m1000]twCi~J[JnCN]Kk+elJn[alN-j 
N0]'jJn]pK+j]

Then look at what it unmushes to:

[r s fe c s [n: se [i 1 v 5 x 10 l 50 c 100 d 500 m 1000] tw c i 
~ j [j: n cn] k: k + el j n [al n - j n: 0] 'j j: n] p k + j]

Saves 40%.  The colons and the spaces are intertwined issues, just 
due to the rules of Rebol.  And I feel that if the dialect wasn't 
parseable Rebol but a string it wouldn't rightfully be called a Rebol 
dialect.

Sunanda: Rebol definitely could get some publicity with empathetic 
people if it were to embrace the code golfers...

Sunanda: I feel from my experience with parse that it's the sort 
of thing that can, if it fits your problem, help you a great deal... 
but it often seems to be just short of the needed functionality. 
 I feel if your task does not depend on knowing the true/false result 
of matching, then series operations are often better.  I've been 
thinking "if you don't use the boolean result of parse, you probably 
aren't working on a task that needs parse."

Generally Rebolers don"t make any difference with dialects parsing 
a string or a loaded block. It's called dialect as-well.