On Sun, 09 May 2010 02:11:21 -0400, Lionello Lunesu
l...@lunesu.remove.com wrote:
I'm in the middle of moving from one city to another so don't wait for
me. I have attached the D version of the code in the wikipedia article
(including the patch for transpositions.)
It's not straightforward
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 02:11:21 -0400, Lionello Lunesu
l...@lunesu.remove.com wrote:
I'm in the middle of moving from one city to another so don't wait for
me. I have attached the D version of the code in the wikipedia article
(including the patch for
On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:22:21 -0400, Ary Borenszweig a...@esperanto.org.ar
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Several others have privately brought up this problem to Walter. He
does not want to change how the symbol lookup tables work, and there is
no way to iterate them.
I can't
Hello Steven,
Several others have privately brought up this problem to Walter. He
does not want to change how the symbol lookup tables work, and there
is no way to iterate them.
Is it fundamentally impossible to iterate or is the code just not there and/or
nasty to write?
--
... IXOYE
On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:41:08 -0400, BCS n...@anon.com wrote:
Hello Steven,
Several others have privately brought up this problem to Walter. He
does not want to change how the symbol lookup tables work, and there
is no way to iterate them.
Is it fundamentally impossible to iterate or is the
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It may not be an issue, the spell checker is simply a nice hint, but
isn't essential to determine errors.
It's a good summary of the situation. I've felt that as long as the message took
under a second to generate, it was ok. Realistically, I don't see anyone using
