Even something as simple as checking that bound and throwing IllegalStateException with a custom message -- yeah I imagine it's hard to detect this anytime earlier. Just a thought.
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jeff Eastman <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it is not very friendly. Impossible to tell the correct value in the > options section processing. It needs to be >= than the actual number of > unique terms in the corpus and that is hard to anticipate though I think it > is known in seq2sparse. If it turns out to be the dictionary size (I'm > investigating), then it could be computed by adding a dictionary path > argument instead of the current option. Trouble with that is the dictionary > is not needed for anything else by LDA. >
