+1
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:14 AM Xavi Ivars wrote:
> First of all, just to mention I don't consider myself a language developer
> (but someone who messes around everything).
>
> - I think I would leave this for the "secondary tag" developer, similar
> to what we already do to the "primary
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 6:15 AM Flammie A Pirinen wrote:
>
> I don't personally find apertium stream format readable, if I need to
> make sense of it I will anyways have to preprocess a lot, enough that
> I'd say apertium stream format need visualisation scripts to be
> readable. It's not very
First of all, just to mention I don't consider myself a language developer
(but someone who messes around everything).
- I think I would leave this for the "secondary tag" developer, similar to
what we already do to the "primary tags" one. For example, no-one forbids
currently having a primary
El 2020-05-10 14:51, Samuel Sloniker escribió:
Would it be worth designing a parsing library?
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 3:15 AM Flammie A Pirinen
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:50:45PM +0200, Tino Didriksen wrote:
For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be
implemented in a
Would it be worth designing a parsing library?
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 3:15 AM Flammie A Pirinen wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:50:45PM +0200, Tino Didriksen wrote:
> > For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be implemented in a
> > backwards compatible manner. That it in
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:50:45PM +0200, Tino Didriksen wrote:
> For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be implemented in a
> backwards compatible manner. That it in itself indisputable. But, there is
> a question of how the initial batch of secondary tags should look.
>
> I feel
Speaking as a language developer,¹ I prefer concise, textual tags.
E.g., I don't think is good—it clogs the stream
with verbosity, as Fran points out.
On the other hand, I don't mind symbols here and there, like <§agent>.
But I don't think this is a good secondary tag, unless we make it very
Missatge de Francis Tyers del dia dv., 8 de maig 2020
a les 18:05:
> El 2020-05-08 15:50, Tino Didriksen escribió:
> > For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be implemented in
> > a backwards compatible manner. That it in itself indisputable. But,
> > there is a question of how the
>
> My proposal was for:
>
>
> отец<@subj><§agent><%:отца><:human><:kin>
>
> If we have to have these "secondary tags"... which I have yet to be
> completely convinced of,
>
What exactly is your hesitation here? I want to make sure you guys are
happy with the proposal before going ahead with it,
El 2020-05-08 15:50, Tino Didriksen escribió:
For khannatanmai's GSoC project, secondary tags will be implemented in
a backwards compatible manner. That it in itself indisputable. But,
there is a question of how the initial batch of secondary tags should
look.
I feel they should be in the form
10 matches
Mail list logo
