El dl 26 de 03 de 2012 a les 22:57 +0100, en/na Jimmy O'Regan va escriure: > On 26 March 2012 22:17, Aaron Rubin <aaronjrub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've adjusted the plan quite a bit - it now gives more time to transfer > > rules and checks for a few other problems that I thought might come up. How > > does it look? > > > > Weeks 1-5, .dix files: > > > > Week 1: Redundant Entry Finder > > Week 2: Testing Full Entries in Lemmas where Part of the Lemma is Specified > > by the Pardef; Testing Misspelled Tags and Pardefs > > Week 3: Testing Incompatible Tags; Testing Tag Missing on One Side of > > Translation Equivalents (in bilingual dictionaries) > > Week 4: Testing Missing Gender on Gendered Languages (in bilingual > > dictionaries) > > Running such a tool on the es-ca dictionary would report ~15000 false > positives; on en-es, ~1200. It would be nice to be able to add > something like <!-- no_gender_check --> to a dictionary, and have it > exit. > > > Week 5: Bundling features together in one program; re-organizing code, and > > writing documentation, to make sure that everything is as neat and > > maintainable as possible. Combining tests from previous weeks into a single > > testing program so that all features can be tested at once when the code is > > modified in the future. > > Weeks 6-12, transfer rules: > > Week 6: Checking inappropriate uses of <equal>, <begins-with>, <ends-with>, > > and <let> in transfer rules (equating a tag with a non-empty string literal, > > etc.) > > Using let to assign an empty string to a tag is an appropriate use, be > sure you take that into account. > > > Week 7: Checking for cases where the user asks for nonexistent tags with > > lit-tag v="some_tag" (always an error) or for a string literal with lit > > v="some_string" that is identical to a tag (suspicious and very likely an > > error). > > The latter seems dubious. It seems a reasonable thing to do in > <concat> at least. > > > Week 8: Checking for undefined tags after attr-item in attribute > > definitions, probably due to spelling errors. Checking for calls to anything > > other than a defined attribute, lem, lemh, lemq, whole, or tags after part= > > in a clip. > > Week 9: Checking for patterns that refer to non-existent categories, > > probably due to spelling errors. > > Already caught by the validator, though a more descriptive error > message might be helpful. > > > Checking for misspelled variables. > > Week 10: Checking for an untagged chunk (ex., in the rule "HACE NUM NOM" in > > apertium-en-es.en-es.t1x, forgetting to give the resulting chunk the tag > > "adverb," which seems like a conceivable mistake to me). Checking for > > incorrect number of arguments in calls to macro. > > Also already caught by the validator.
Is it ? I've been hit by this before. Anyway, stuff that is already caught by the validator, might be worth putting aside for documentation (with examples), or for adding if there is time spare... Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
