El dv 19 de 07 de 2013 a les 22:35 +0100, en/na Jimmy O'Regan va escriure: > On 19 July 2013 21:03, Francis Tyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > El dv 19 de 07 de 2013 a les 19:52 +0100, en/na Jimmy O'Regan va > > escriure: > >> Er... why? 'lt-comp lr' and 'lt-comp rl' are presumably irrelevant, so > >> why not make it 'lt-comp att' or whatever else makes sense. > > > > The lr/rl is still relevant for compiling a generator or an analyser... > > How relevant? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that > both analyser and generator will need to be exported separately, but > converted with the same process. If that's the case, it's not relevant > in any real sense. Making a pair of dummy cli wrappers around the same > converter doesn't save any documentation because you'll already have > to mention the conversion.
Wouldn't it just be possible to reverse the transition labels to compile an analyser/generator from the same source ? F. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
