Ok, I’ll let you know. Rgds.,
Sascha > Am 07.06.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Mihai Chira <[email protected]>: > > 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 >>> >>> >>
