Hi Petr, 9-Jan-2000 you wrote:
[...]
>any. "to end" would solve it. The result is, even if "ing" got matched and
>applying of rule was a success, it doesn't mean whole parse is succesfull.
It's
>like expecting parse "ringing bells" [thru "ing"] is going to return 'true,
but it
>isn't as "to end" is missing ...
I understand this now. Sorry, I just didn't think this far.
[...]
>huh :-) and we are back from all recursion calls. Being it one way or other,
I
>would suggest forget your technique, as it's very inefficient ...
As I said in another mail, this wasn't what I had in my mind when I wrote the
mails - I just wanted a way to write the regular expressions in the Parse
dialect, not thinking of how Parse is actually implemented.
[...]
>b2: g i.n.g. 17
>b2: ng i.n.g. 16
>b2: ing i.n.g. 15
>== false
>->>
>oops - do you see? "ing" was applied, but we are NOT returning to upper
levels of
>recursion. The result is - 'false, but why? As the rule doesn't contain "to
end"
...and therefore the whole Parse operation fails, since we don't reach the end
of the input string. Yup, I get it now!
[...]
>hope-this-helps
Sure! Thanks for being so stubborn on me, otherwise I wouldn't have understood
it ;-)
Kind regards,
--
Ole Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ignorance is bliss"
(Cypher, The Matrix)
