Hi,
I haven't tested the rule for bugs yet , so here's just a comment for now.
The order of evaluation of the conditions is fixed. The usage of
conditions on a wildcard can lead to unexpected matches (and it can
considerbaly decrease the runtime performance).
There is a difference between a wildcard and a reluctant quantfier like
"ANY+?".
The wildcard takes a look at the next rule element and then evaluates
its conditons. If a condition fails, the next rule element is consulted
again, like moving forward on its iterator, and then the conditions are
checked again. With a normal matching rule, the conditions are directly
evaluated and the next element is not considered anew or skipped.
I have to test the rule in order to give you a specific answer, but that
will take some time (I am a bit busy right now)
Best,
Peter
Am 11.08.2017 um 22:23 schrieb Tom Vacek:
Assume I have made PositiveContext and NegativeContext annotations from a
word list. I would like a wildcard rule that allows any number of
PositiveContext tokens, some (eg 4) unknown tokens, but no NegativeContext
tokens.
I have this rule:
INT contextCount;
(Keyword1 #{COUNT(PositiveContext,0,100,contextCount),
CONTAINS(W,0,contextCount+4), -CONTAINS(NegativeContext)} Keyword2
The rule behaves unpredictably, perhaps as if the order of evaluation of
the conditions is not fixed. Is this the case? Or is it some other bug?
Thanks,
Tom
