2017-09-12 11:05 GMT+03:00 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer <unham...@fsfe.org>:
> Hèctor Alòs i Font <hectoralos-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org>
> čálii:
>
> > I have the following paradigm definition in a bidix
> >
> > <pardef n="sup_0_mf">
> > <e><p><l></l><r></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> > </pardef>
> >
> > and the following translation
> >
> > <e r="RL"><p><l>elegant<s n="adj"/></l> <r>elegante<s
> n="adj"/></r></p><par n="sup_0_mf"/></e>
> >
> > The compilations works fine and there is no problem translating from
> left to right. But when translating anything from right to left I get:
> >
> > Error: Invalid dictionary (hint: the left side of an entry is empty)
> >
> > The problem is in the first line of the pardef. If I change it, putting
> anything, it works: for instance, when doing:
> >
> > <pardef n="sup_0_mf">
> > <e><p><l><s n="mf"/></l><r><s n="mf"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> > <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> > </pardef>
> >
> > There are several forms to avoid this kind of "empty" lines in the
> pardefs, but, in any case, I think there is a bug and it'd be fine to have
> it corrected.
>
> It's definitely a bug, already reported at https://sourceforge.net/p/
> apertium/tickets/65/
> but now I added a simpler test case to
> https://sourceforge.net/p/apertium/tickets/65/#34b1
>
> So when compiled *right to left*, all the LR's are "skipped" and the
> pardef becomes
>
> <pardef n="sup_0_mf">
> <e><p><l></l><r></r></p></e>
> </pardef>
>
> I've typically worked around it with a line that is unlikely to match
> anything, e.g.
>
> <pardef n="sup_0_mf">
> <e><p><l></l><r></r></p></e>
> <e><p><l>NO_EMPTY_PARDEFS_WORKAROUND</l><r>NO_EMPTY_
> PARDEFS_WORKAROUND</r></p></e>
> <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="sg"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="sg"/></r></p></e>
> <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="m"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> <e r="LR"><p><l><s n="sup"/><s n="f"/><s n="pl"/></l><r><s n="mf"/><s
> n="pl"/></r></p></e>
> </pardef>
>
> which, when compiled RL, is interpreted as
>
> <pardef n="sup_0_mf">
> <e><p><l></l><r></r></p></e>
> <e><p><l>NO_EMPTY_PARDEFS_WORKAROUND</l><r>NO_EMPTY_
> PARDEFS_WORKAROUND</r></p></e>
> </pardef>
>
> But we shouldn't have to.
>
> The fact that the binary of the simplified .dix prints to
>
> $ lt-print lr.bin
> 0 1 x x
> 1 0 <adj> <adj>
> 0
>
> shows that lt-comp is doing something very weird here. Anyone have a
> clue what might be going on?
>
>
>
Thanks, Kevin, for the feedback and workaround. In my case, I've used
something ad-hoc which is not general, as your solution is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
