El ds 13 de 07 de 2013 a les 16:34 +0200, en/na Mikel Forcada va escriure: > Jim, Fran: > > Sorry but I have to step in and say that I am not happy with the > procedure followed here. > > I still need to be convinced that having these declarations optional > is a good idea. Hey, I might be convinced. I'm just saying I am not > convinced now. Actually, I am convinced of the opposite. > > I know the change is reversible, but I feel this is a rather important > design decision, affecting the trunk, and one that has not been agreed > with other qualified Apertiumers. > > Even by Apertiumers who cannot easily patch the code in the trunk as > me. > > If I could, what would be the general feeling among Apertium > developers if I had made changes to have it my way so that blanks > following a lexical unit were accessible with the number of that > lexical unit (as it is done inside actions!), that is, so that a call > to a macro with <with-param pos="4"/> would make both <clip > pos="4"..../> and <b pos="4"/> accessible as <clip pos="1"/> and <b > pos="1">?
I agree with you that the appropriate procedure was not followed. However your example is not comparable. This change does not change the behaviour of existing code, it makes the validation less strict. I'll revert the change until it has been properly discussed. So, if anyone is against the change could they let us know :) Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
