If you have an idea how the format of the dictionary object has changed (maybe an official spec?), and / or would like to contribute a fix for getting Squiggly to work with it, your contribution is more than welcome.
On 7 June 2015 at 13:09, Sascha Ahrend <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, it looks as if I found a solution. > > Actually it hasn’t to do anything with the recursion depth, there seems to be > Squiggly-incompatible specifications in some newer .aff files (at least in > the OpenOffice repository). > > I just grabbed an older .aff file from the OO-archive and at a first glance > it works fine even with the latest dic. > > By time, I’ll check the differences, let you know if there is further > unexpected issues… > > Have a nice Sunday!! > > > > >> Am 07.06.2015 um 12:37 schrieb Sascha Ahrend <[email protected]>: >> >> Hello, >> >> with some dictionaries (aff + dic) parsed by squiggly, I get an Error #1023: >> Stack overflow occurred. >> >> I added a compiler option -default-script-limits to my file where I >> increased the max-recursion-depth value, but that didn’t work either. >> >> Since I am using the pre-compiled squiggly binaries, would it make sense to >> manually compile the squiggly source including the above mentioned compiler >> option? >> >> Could this solve the case, or is there already any known solution? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Sascha >> >> >
