"Jimmy O'Regan" <jore...@gmail.com> writes: > [Readding list cc] > > On 13 July 2013 07:12, Mikel Forcada <m...@dlsi.ua.es> wrote: >> Sergio, Jimmy, all: >> >> Thanks for your help. I am, however, still a bit confused. >> >> Jimmy says that "it's no less counterintuitive to pass <clip> when you want >> <b>.". Well, I was just passing positions and hoping that pos="n" accessed >> the blank between the lexical units at pos="n" and pos="n+1", as this is >> what you do when you don't use macros: > > I'll take a step back here, and admit that "no less counterintuitive" > is simply incorrect. I was swept up in the moment a little; what I > really meant is that both are counterintuitive (albeit, to different > degrees) and if we are to consider this a bug, then the correct > resolution would be to do what is intuitive: to allow <b> as a > parameter to macros. The correct++ resolution would be to allow > anything that can appear in <out> to be used as a parameter to a > macro.
Is there a good reason why we can't pass anything to a macro? If people try to pass <b pos="5"/> when all they can access from that rule is pos=4, any out-of-bounds error should be as easy to catch by the compiler as <clip pos="5">. -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer GPG: 0x766AC60C
pgp5ljXYjmbPS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
