World: r3wp

I think it was mainly meant as a way to make / based ops   things 
like //  and  ///  .  I don't see why it should be removed.  it can 
only contain  "/"  characters.  otherwise its a refinement.

there's no way [///x] should be a valid refinement. It will fail 
when evaluated

But yeah it's another problem

I mixed things, but there is something wrong with the both datatypes 
in R2 (it"s why it has been corrected in R3)

yeah, except when we use refinements as such within dialects, then 
it doesn't matter, since they are not being used as paths.

but its ugly so,  ///x  shouldn't be "promoted"  IMHO.   if its an 
un-intended loophole in the lexical analysis, then it shouldn't be 
within the syntax.r code.

about the more-less-word rule:
>> and << are allowed

thanks

>= also

=> as well

the last one does not work in R3

Maybe we should begin to add notes somewhere when we encounter such 
differences

There is already a method for that

We already have ALTERNATIVE-SYNTAX for that.

Oh I thought you would say : a new I-pad or I-phone :-)

hmm, just tested, and load "=>" does not work in R2 either

Ah yeah sorry

in the [slash-word] rule, you don't need to fork the [termination] 
rule (no need to remove #"/")

aha, correct

rebol-syntax comes now licensed under the terms of the "MIT License".

There are tickets about R3 syntax bugs that are still pending. Among 
those are one for the // etc. words.

http://issue.cc/r3/1477- Special-case / words not recognized in 
lit-word!,  get-word! or set-word! form

http://issue.cc/r3/1478- Special-case arrow-based words not recognized 
in set-word! or refinement! form

Those seem to be the last two unimplemented syntax fixes in R3, at 
least that I can find/remember.

However, it looks like R3's issue! syntax isn't final: http://issue.cc/r3/1657
- Define the valid lexical forms for ISSUE! datatype

http://issue.cc/r3/1477- however, the slash-words can have neither 
the refinement-syntax nor the path-syntax; because of that they remain 
"problematic" anyway

how about the + and - words? Is there a ticket for the refinement 
syntax?

Yeah, an implemented one.

You mean http://issue.cc/r3/1856I assume?

Yup. I guess it's built for an unreleased version. I was wondering 
why it's not marked as tested.

Pity that A112 never came to be up until today, then.

(Same for http://issue.cc/r3/1855.But in that case, at least ////x 
still loads in R3 :)

Attempt for word datatype
 

c-word: complement union charset "()[]^"{}/;<>,\#$%:@'^@" whitespace
word-syntax: [
	  [#"." | not #"'"] c-word any [c-word | digit]
	  | #"."
]

hmm, it looks that #"^@" "works" as "END LOAD"

??? I don't get it

Oh, I see. you mean that "^@" is a problem wherever it is placed 
in a script

It's not specific to the word! syntax

At first I thought it should be better in whitespace

better placed

Check END-LOAD

Why did you put #"'" into the c-word definition?

I forgot to add #"'" in the charset.

c-word: complement union charset "()[]^"{}/;<>,\#$%:@^@" whitespace

Good, you saw it

you're fast

I also forgot to add the special cases for + and -

c-word: complement union charset "()[]^"{}/;<>,\#$%:@^@" whitespace
word-syntax: [
	  [#"." | #"+" | #"-" | not #"'"] c-word any [c-word | digit]
	  | #"." | #"+" | #"-"
]

Thanks to your notes

Well it's more complex than that.
+' and -' are invalid

Maybe
word-syntax: [
	[#"." | #"+" not #"'"| #"-" not #"'"| not #"'"] 
		c-word any [c-word | digit]
	| #"." | #"+" | #"-"
]

lots of exceptions, indeed

Should that be enforced with [termination] also ?

Well, this way it would accept some unacceptable strings, like "." 
in ".1" e.g.