One thing we have considered for a while is whether to do a rewrite of the
rules to simplify the processing (and avoid the "treat as" rules), but it
would take a fair amount of design work that we haven't had time to do. If
you (or others) are interested in getting involved, please let us know.
Ma
On 4 March 2020 at 18:48:09, Daniel Bünzli (daniel.buen...@erratique.ch) wrote:
> On 4 March 2020 at 18:01:25, Daniel Bünzli (daniel.buen...@erratique.ch)
> wrote:
>
> > Re-reading the text I suspect I should not restart the rules from the first
> > one when a
> WB4
> > rewrite occurs but on
On 4 March 2020 at 18:01:25, Daniel Bünzli (daniel.buen...@erratique.ch) wrote:
> Re-reading the text I suspect I should not restart the rules from the first
> one when a WB4
> rewrite occurs but only apply the subsequent rules. Is that correct ?
However even if that's correct I don't understa
Hello,
My implementation of word break chokes only on the following test case from the
file [1]:
÷ 0020 × 0308 ÷ 0020 ÷ # ÷ [0.2] SPACE (WSegSpace) × [4.0] COMBINING DIAERESIS
(Extend_FE) ÷ [999.0] SPACE (WSegSpace) ÷ [0.3]
I find:
÷ 0020 × 0308 × 0020 ÷
Basically my implementation uses
4 matches
Mail list logo