Jakson Aquino wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Unfortunately, when I run Aap, applying the diff fails.  It looks like > >> > the diff was made for another pt_PT.aff file.  The one that was > >> > downloaded looks like this: > >> > > >> > > >> > SET UTF-8 > >> > LANG pt_PT > >> > TRY > >> > aerisontcdmlupvgbfzáhçqjÃxãóéêâúõACMPSBTELGRIFVDkHJONôywUKXZWQà > >> > Yà Éà ÓèÂÚ > >> > KEY qwertyuiop|asdfghjkl|zxcvbnm > >> > WORDCHARS - > >> > > >> > > >> > The diff expects: > >> > > >> >  SET ISO8859-1 > >> > - TRY > >> > aerisontcdmlupvgbfzáhçqjÃxãóéêâúõACMPSBTELGRIFVDkHJONôywUKXZWQà > >> > Yà Éà ÓèÂÚ > >> > > >> > > >> > Also, the .aff file has lots of trailing text.  Are we using the same > >> > download? > >> > I have made an attempt in fixing this.  Please check the files on the > >> > ftp server: ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/runtime/spell/pt/ > >> > > >> > Also check spell suggestions with the generated .spl file. > >> > > >> > >> It seems that everything is ok now. Thank you very much for fixing it! > >> > >> I deleted all files from my local spell/pt directory and restored them > >> with "hg updated -C". I compared the files generated by "hg update -C" > >> with the ones in the ftp server and they have the same md5sums. Then, > >> I generated and copied the pt.utf-8.spl and pt.latin1.spl files to > >> ~/.vim/spell. European and Brazilian spell check seems to be correct > >> and up to date and the spell suggestions are good. > >> > >> However, the pt.utf-8.spl from the ftp server seems to be outdated... > >> Did you do "aap clean" before generating it? > > > > No, I didn't update the pt_BR files.  I'll do that now.  Hmm, I see a > > few warnings... > > I see some duplicate warnings... > > fixdup.vim can delete 122 duplicates, but about 1600 would remain. > > The lines weren't duplicates in the original pt_PT.dic because each > root entry---even though carrying the same suffixes---had a different > grammatical category. They became duplicates after the deletion of the > grammatical information. Most of the remaining duplicates can be > deleted with: > > :2,$ sort u > > But about 200 duplicated roots would still remain because they have > different suffixes. Example: > > advindo/L > advindo/fp > > I guess that, if there is no problem in the .dic being sorted, we can > use ":2,$ sort u" to delete the real duplicates, but I guess that it's > better to let the remaining 200 duplicates in the file. > > So, what to do?
The duplicates are not a real problem. It's useful if you are writing a dictionary. I think using that sort command is good. You can verify that with and without the sort command the spell file is the same. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 39. You move into a new house and decide to Netscape before you landscape. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
