Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
On 30-Dic-99, you wrote:
K> I think it's safe to say this is too complex for general use.
K> I shudder to think what would be involved trying to generate
K> such a rule.
Indeed, it would have been much easier to be able to write:
t*t: ["t" some ["t " break | no-
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
On 29-Dic-99, you wrote:
K> I wonder if I could butt in here. I responded to Petr's
K> message, but I think the example I used was so complicated
K> that everyone must have hit the delete button. Here's the same
K> challenge in a very simple form: Find a word (in the
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
On 29-Dic-99, you wrote:
P> very primitive, but worked. I used find/any, but was not
P> satisfied with the result, as t*t would scan the string for
P> the next occurance in the particular news article. Too much
Hmm, this is a bit more challenging. If we are not afrai
(Hmm, Petr's message has yet to arrive here. SELMA?)
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
On 29-Dic-99, you wrote:
i> Hi Petr,
i>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i>>> Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
i>> On 27-Dic-99, you wrote:
i>>> [thru "s" "om" skip " " "t" thru "t" " " "to" " " "p"
i>> skip
i>>> skip "se
