[REBOL] Re: parse, again...
From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 6-Nov-2001 10:04
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> Brett Handley
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:49 AM
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: parse, again...
> As it reads, it looks as if you are saying that "skip to end" is a single
> atomic parse instruction, that Rebol understands the English meaning of the
> phrase 'skip to end' - I disagree with this.
Hi, no that wasn't my intention. Of course these are two instructions 'skip and
'to and one special meaning terminal symbol 'end ;-). My sentence just specified
the meaning of the whole rule.
> I was simply saying that you
> have two parse instructions here. "skip" is carried out first, then "to end"
> is carried out.
Correct. As said two instructions and one terminal symbol.
> Perhaps your comment that skip is mandatory is relative to some particular
> situation (or the stopping condition discussion), if so I'm sorry I
> obviously missed your intention.
No problem, I'm not a native english speaker so I might not write specific
enough. With mandatory I meant the meaning of skip is 'skip one symbol' and not
'skip one symbol if possible else ignore the rule' Robert