On 11 July 2010 22:48, Jacob Nordfalk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, but it's not an exception to the pattern, it's an exception to the rule that comes about exactly because it matches the pattern. Anyway: 1) pattern is used to construct the FST. Best not to screw with that. 2) It'd be counter-intuitive when you're testing on the content of more than one word. -- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
