AltME groups: search

actually,  path! also has a few quirks, like allowing parens and 
the use of a  get-set-word at the end

but path! needs all the other dataypes to be finished first

no, afaik,  just paren!, word and its own additional format quirks. 
    as the global block definition expacts, so too will parens, and 
thus the path.

yeah, just have to find the values which are valid in a path (not 
all types are valid, at least in R2)

hehe.  but it may adds another complexity to the  <  parsing rule 
maybe some precedende in the rule will be required to make sure the 
this/<tag> isn't short-circuited by another simpler rule.

maybe some precedende in the rule == .  Maybe some precedende manipulations 
in the rules

actually... strike that... I just discovered how twisted the loader 
is .

maybe we can note to this effect within the comments, to indicate 
how the time shifts when two or three number values are in the time.
hehe I can see a noob scratching his head  ;-)

3:03     == 3:03:00  
3.03.4  == 0:03:03.4

its ironic that the above will load but that a single comma with 
kill the loader   :-)

I can't use the time! rule inside date!, the allowed forms are different.
Youpiiiiiiiiii

About short Date syntax .
A valid month is taken from system/locale/months:
== ["January" "February" "March" "April" "May" "June"
    "July" "August" "September" "October" "November" "December"
]

The month must be 3 letters a least, but longer sub-strings are valid 
forms as well:

eg. 1-Jan-2000, 1-Janu-2000, 1-Janua-2000,1-Januar-2000,1-January-2000.


One can do a simple rebol function to pick-up a valid month from 
system/locale/months.

Doing this only with plain formal static parse rules would be painfull 
because it should include all the valid sub-strings.
eg. ["Jan" | "Janu" | "Janua" | ...]

What do you think ?

I try to resume my thought.
Is it valid to run some code in the rules using (...) ?

No () please, but you can of course use code to generate the static 
rule in the first place :)

Yes, strictly no code blocks in the rules.

Just use the generated block :)

The order of subwords in the above "exhaustive rule" shall be reversed, 
though.

However, the example Steeve posted does not contain "code blocks"