2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan <[email protected]>
> On 11 July 2010 22:22, Jacob Nordfalk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan <[email protected]>
> >
> >>
> >> <section-rules>
> >> <rule>
> >> <pattern>
> >> <pattern-item n="adj"/>
> >> <pattern-item n="n"/>
> >> </pattern>
> >> <action>
> >> <exception>
> >> <test>
> >> <equal caseless="yes">
> >> <clip pos="2" side="sl" part="lem"/>
> >> <lit v="bar"/>
> >> </equal>
> >> </test>
> >> </exception>
> >
> > Now, I do understand why you chose that way of writing it (its the
> easiest
> > way to implement), but if we adopt <exception> I it would make more sense
> to
> > make the exception a part of the <pattern> element, like this:
>
> Pattern exceptions is what LanguageTool uses, and there's scope for
> *also* having that, but I'm interested in runtime-based exceptions
> that have access to all matched words, to check for agreement.
>
I think we should stick to runtime exceptions, and not consider pattern
exceptions at all.
My point is that for transfer rule developers it would make much more sense
to percieve it as 'an exception to the pattern'. Now it looks like 'an
exception to an action', which doesent make too much sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
