> I tried to stay as close as possible with that rule to the parse tree just > to see if it would match the pattern. More as an experiment. >
I played around with your example a bit more, better to understand why it wasn't matching. Have a look at this: https://gist.github.com/960582 This is your original rule, with your original parse tree (t). It doesn't match. Simplify the parse tree a bit though (t2), and it *does* match. Which yields the answer ;) The reason your rule doesn't match the bit of parse tree at line 13, I believe, is that it doesn't account for the *:factor* and *:plus* terms in lines 11 and 12. cheers ant
