I didn't follow the conversation but:
Why traverse the string again? You already traversed it by "--- ".. then you can
leave out the mark: :mark clause.. also you should use [thru newline] to prevent
another 'dumb' loop of the parser...
rule: [
"===" copy header thru newline
(append header " (FIRST LEVEL)"
append full-contents header) |
"---" copy header thru newline
(append header " (SECOND LEVEL)"
append full-contents header) |
thru newline
]
parse/all "..." [ some rule ]
...
...Daan
> If anyone can think of a way to refine the following, I love
>suggestions:
>
>rule: [
> mark:
> "=== " :mark thru "=== " copy header to newline
> (append header " (FIRST LEVEL)"
> append full-contents header) |
> "--- " :mark thru "--- " copy header to newline
> (append header " (SECOND LEVEL)"
> append full-contents header) |
> thru newline
>]
>
> It's worth noting my attempts to put 'thru" just after mark: and
>before the target string resulted in errors with append's attempts
>to insert header into full-contents... However, by "backing up"
>to :mark once a set of character's was located and THEN going 'thru'
>the set of characters I had originally sought allowed me to prevent
>the sought after set of characters from being included in the copy
>to header. This is the most graceful way I could figer out. If
>anyone can think of a better way, I'm all eyes.
> Cheerfulness,
>
> -----EAT
>
...Daan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
