World: r3wp

0..0
 :)

yep

replace some by any

But but... it's not only the leading and trailing zeros that can 
be removed.
It takes me time......

So the initial implementation of ladislav was right from the start

adding the termination is needed, though

let me try again :-)

the only requested digit is the second  one.
.0.... is valid

or/and the first one

0..... is valid
.0..... is valid

aha, did not check the second one, needs a correction, then

tuple-syntax: [[some digit 2 9 [#"." any digit] | #"." some digit 
1 8 [#"." any digit] ] and termination]

should be better

OK

Fiouuuu.... that one was hard :-)

Well.. may be silly question, but can I use those parse magics in 
my projects? I didn't see license information.

A very good question. No license attached, yet. We'll fix that.

Ok, thanks.

Andreas and Ladislav, already off ?

I'm around.

Still miss some datatypes ;-)

Have a go at adding some more, then :)

I don't want a collision. I thought your or Ladislav would finish 
it with the others making comments

Can do a merge ...

The slash words are weird. Didn't know that specific syntax.
It works with R2 not with R3 anymore.

Maybe it was a mistake to allow such syntax in R2, so it's why it 
has been deprecated by Carl.

Should we keep it ?

(See the last update of Ladislav)

Not working though (the first part is a valid refinement in R2 ):
>> [///x//]
== [///x //]

Definitivly, I don't think we should  keep  such syntax even in R2. 
It makes no sense to use such (it was an error corrected in R3).

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.