Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 24 July 2010 15:41, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: > 2010/7/24 Jimmy O'Regan : >> On 24 July 2010 13:15, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: >>> I've noticed a lot more rules that all could do with this , >>> at least a fifth of the sme-nob chunking rules have possibilities for >>> mis-chunking (eg.

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/24 Jimmy O'Regan : > On 24 July 2010 13:15, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: >> I've noticed a lot more rules that all could do with this , >> at least a fifth of the sme-nob chunking rules have possibilities for >> mis-chunking (eg. det.loc + n.ill should not be chunked, but most >> other cas

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 24 July 2010 14:27, Keld Simonsen wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:15:09PM +0200, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: >> 2010/7/11 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer : >> > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan : >> >> The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: >> > >> > This has been on my wishlist for a

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:15:09PM +0200, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: > 2010/7/11 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer : > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan : > >> The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: > > > > This has been on my wishlist for a while =D > > > >> Exception can contain a single --

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 24 July 2010 13:15, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: > I've noticed a lot more rules that all could do with this , > at least a fifth of the sme-nob chunking rules have possibilities for > mis-chunking (eg. det.loc + n.ill should not be chunked, but most > other cases of det and n should be chunke

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer : > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan : >> The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: > > This has been on my wishlist for a while =D > >> Exception can contain a single -- if the test evaluates to >> 'true', the current rule is ignored, and the last applica

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 12 July 2010 14:23, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > > > 2010/7/12 Jimmy O'Regan >> >> On 12 July 2010 09:55, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: >> > Yes, continue or even break or interrupt would make more sense in an >> > action >> > tag. >> > At least to me, as a programmer. >> > >> >> 'rule', 'exception'. What

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/12 Jimmy O'Regan > On 12 July 2010 09:55, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > > Yes, continue or even break or interrupt would make more sense in an > action > > tag. > > At least to me, as a programmer. > > > > 'rule', 'exception'. What's difficult to understand there? > > Anyway, I call bikeshed. >

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 12 July 2010 09:55, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > Yes, continue or even break or interrupt would make more sense in an action > tag. > At least to me, as a programmer. > 'rule', 'exception'. What's difficult to understand there? Anyway, I call bikeshed. -- jimregan, that's because deep inside yo

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

Yes, continue or even break or interrupt would make more sense in an action tag. At least to me, as a programmer. Sendt fra min Android Den 12/07/2010 08.58 skrev "Kevin Brubeck Unhammer" : 2010/7/11 Jacob Nordfalk : > > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan >> >> On 11 July 2010 22:22, Jacob Nordfalk …

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Jacob Nordfalk : > > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan >> >> On 11 July 2010 22:22, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan >> > >> >> >> >>   >> >>     >> >>       >> >>         >> >>         >> >>       >> >>       >> >>         >> >>           >> >>             >> >>  

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 22:48, Jacob Nordfalk 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 > excep

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 22:08, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > First: Great work Jimmy, trying to improve transfer is a good thing. > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan >> >> > Of course, one can always acheive the same as by using >> > and duplicating the contents of the single-item rules, >> > but, well, that means d

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > On 11 July 2010 22:22, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > > > > > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 22:25, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > BTW if you think of it, in reality there are a lot more possibilities in the > FSTProcessor. > For example, we could also have several rules with the same match criteria > (i.e. same length) and then choosing the first one. If it 'fails' we > continue

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 22:22, Jacob Nordfalk wrote: > > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > >> >>   >>     >>       >>         >>         >>       >>       >>         >>           >>             >>               >>               >>             >>           >>         > > Now, I do understand why you chose that

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Jacob Nordfalk > First: Great work Jimmy, trying to improve transfer is a good thing. > > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > >> >> > Of course, one can always acheive the same as by using >> > and duplicating the contents of the single-item rules, >> > but, well, that means duplicating conten

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I do understand why you chose that way of writing it (its the easiest way to implement), but if we adopt

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

First: Great work Jimmy, trying to improve transfer is a good thing. 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan > > > Of course, one can always acheive the same as by using > > and duplicating the contents of the single-item rules, > > but, well, that means duplicating content… this looks like it would be > > a

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 20:56, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: > 2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan : >> The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: > > This has been on my wishlist for a while =D > Well, I stole the idea from LanguageTool, though it's not as flexible as LanguageTool's exception facil

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

2010/7/11 Jimmy O'Regan : > The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: This has been on my wishlist for a while =D > Exception can contain a single -- if the test evaluates to > 'true', the current rule is ignored, and the last applicable rule is > used instead (the implication

Re: [Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

On 11 July 2010 18:18, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: > Motivation: > > The primary motivation was in dealing with Polish: highly inflected > (few 'markers'), adjectives can come before or after the noun. > Inflection *usually* gives enough information for proper segmentation, > but handling it properly wou

[Apertium-stuff] Request for comments/testing: Rule exceptions.

The attached patch adds a new mechanism to transfer rules: Exception can contain a single -- if the test evaluates to 'true', the current rule is ignored, and the last applicable rule is used instead (the implication being that it should only be used in rules whose contains more than one ). Si