Hi Olivier, 2008/8/21 Olivier R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi László, > > Using (long) conditions are better, because they can save dictionary >> lookups. >> > > Is that true for affixes too? > Is it even better if the affix is the longest possible? Yes, it is. It would be much better, when the longer affix excludes a lot of other affix rules. The suffix analysis starts with matching 1-character affix rules, 2-character rules and so on. Before the using of the "ions" rules, Hunspell with your affix table checks 386 1-character affix rules with "s" affix, and 222 affix rules with "ons" affix. This is not very good. > For example, is this line > SFX eE ourir ourue courir .ppasfs > better than: > SFX eE ir ue courir .ppasfs > ? > > If I have understood right, when looking for a correct flexion, Hunspell > will analyse the first line only for word ending by ourue (or close to that > affix?), whereas the second will be for each word ending by ue. > > Am I correct? Yes, you are. Longer suffixes can save the affix method calls for condition checking. > > > > > Hunspell 1.2.7 has an optional FULLSTRIP mode >> for word-length strippings, too: see >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80145. >> > > Thanks for that. I had voted for this issue. > I am the one who had confirmed it at first. ;) Thanks for it and your example. :) > > > Is there also a chance to see this enhancement done soon? > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84915 > Yes, I think. It is a logical extension of the syntax of the condition. Best regards, László > > > Best regards, > Olivier > > -- > > == N'écrivez pas à cette adresse. Réservée aux listes de discussion. == > ** Do not reply at this address. Mailing-list only. ** > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
