On 19 March 2014 18:19, Alexandru Florescu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > Basically, as we talked before, we agree on having a FST and do some > searches (probably breadth-first) over the analyses. Right? >
Who is 'we'? You're missing context here. Breadth-first, yes, because it would need to visit all analyses, and it's a simple extension to the existing analysis(/tokenisation) scheme to add a pair of state queues. You can't use most of the more complicated search algorithms without a notion of cost/distance. If you can think of one, by all means, mention it. > > Do you think there would be any real downsides on doing all the work in the > compiler? > Doing it as an extension to the existing compiler is only marginally more work than the compiler for the searching analyser. In either case, you have to expand the potential forms at compile time; the difference is, because the regular analyser needs lexical forms, you would need to collect those. This is why I recommended building a second, in-memory transducer, for analysis-as-generation. All of the runtime downsides are exclusive to splitting analysis into two stages. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
