On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:15 AM Flammie A Pirinen <flam...@iki.fi> wrote: > > I don't personally find apertium stream format readable, if I need to > make sense of it I will anyways have to preprocess a lot, enough that > I'd say apertium stream format need visualisation scripts to be > readable. It's not very hard to have dev scripts for this. That being > said, I don't find apertium stream format very machine readable either; > with regexes you need tons of ëscapes and double escapes, with > programming languages... well, you have to use regexes because it's not > a standard format with readily available parsing library or a format > neatly designed for python split() or c strtoks, or so... I'm fine with > either special symbols or strings for whatever, as a purely personal > preference I've been pro feature=value even before ud times but that's > not important, as long as stuff is handlable with grep and sed without > convoluted expressions it's all good, no? To that ggoal on the question > of having known set of prefixes, I have always been of the opinion that > any mature release-quality apertium stuff would follow the tags docu on > the wiki[1], I would expect similar to be true for prefixes as well. >
Regarding visualization, I've made a stream colorizer if anyone would find such a thing useful: https://github.com/mr-martian/stream-color _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
