Thanks Peter,
It seems to work. On 13 February 2015 at 22:18, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote: > This should work just fine and should remove both contained annotations. > > I just tested it with the current trunk and the following script: > > DECLARE T1; > "A B" -> T1; > "B" -> T1; > "B" -> T1; > > (T1{-> UNMARK(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)}; > > If applied on the test "A B", only the largest annotation remains. > > Can you test it with the current trunk in case I fixed the bug a few > minutes ago by accident. If not, can you give me more information about the > context of your rule? > > Best, > > Peter > > Am 12.02.2015 um 10:12 schrieb Silvestre Losada: > > I dont know if this is a bug or if it is wokring well. I have the >> following >> annotations. >> >> AnnotationA >> begin:0 >> ends:8 >> id:1 >> AnnotationA >> begin:4 >> ends:8 >> id:2 >> AnnotationA >> begin: 4 >> ends:8 >> id:3 >> >> Then if apply the following ruta >> >> (AnnotationA{-> UNMARK(AnnotationA)}){PARTOFNEQ(AnnotationA)}; >> >> The output is >> AnnotationA >> begin:0 >> ends:8 >> id:1 >> AnnotationA >> begin: 4 >> ends:8 >> id:3 >> >> I expect that annotations with id 2 and 3 will be removed. Is there any >> way >> to remove both >> >> Kind regards >> >> >
