On 26 March 2012 23:23, Francis Tyers <[email protected]> wrote: > El dl 26 de 03 de 2012 a les 23:22 +0100, en/na Jimmy O'Regan va > escriure: >> On 26 March 2012 22:54, Francis Tyers <[email protected]> wrote: >> > El dl 26 de 03 de 2012 a les 22:57 +0100, en/na Jimmy O'Regan va >> > escriure: >> >> On 26 March 2012 22:17, Aaron Rubin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Week 10: Checking for an untagged chunk (ex., in the rule "HACE NUM >> >> > NOM" in >> >> > apertium-en-es.en-es.t1x, forgetting to give the resulting chunk the tag >> >> > "adverb," which seems like a conceivable mistake to me). Checking for >> >> > incorrect number of arguments in calls to macro. >> >> >> >> Also already caught by the validator. >> > >> > Is it ? I've been hit by this before. >> >> You probably copied a non-chunking rule to a chunker file. A check for >> that would be more useful than checking for chunks without tags. > > No, the "checking for incorrect number of arguments in calls to macros", > not the chunking thing. IIRC that is not caught by the validator.
Correct. It is caught by lttoolbox-java, and I think by the vm. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
