So the question would be: why even bother with the initial nested levels, since later changes will obliterate them? If that's what is supposed to happen, it would make more sense to identify the outer-most bracketing, and apply only that single substitution. Perhaps you intended to describe something different?0. text {scope 4 {scope 2 {scope 1} scope 2} scope 4 {scope 3} scope +4} text 1. text {scope 4 {scope 2 -change1- scope 2} scope 4 {scope 3} scope +4} text 2. text {scope 4 - - - -c h a n g e 2- - - - scope 4 {scope 3} scope +4} text 3. text {scope 4 - - - -c h a n g e 2- - - - scope 4 -change3- scope +4} text 4. text - - - - - - - - - - - - -c h a n g e 4- - - - - - - - - - - - + - text
(Update: I suppose that if there were interactions from one step to the next - e.g. if a substitution at step 1 either creates or eliminates a condition that affects what happens in a later stage - then it becomes a more complicated business, posing greater challenges for maintenance.)
In reply to Re: Text parsing. Processing scopes and subscopes.
by graff
in thread Text parsing. Processing scopes and subscopes.
by Lana
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |