Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:01:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1427094769.9618.1335276096224.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <750183298.9592.1335275736111.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4019) Parsing Hunspell affix rules
 without regexp condition
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4019?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13260566#comment-13260566 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4019:
-------------------------------------

I dont know if there is a real spec, more just what hunspell allows.

Furthermore i think some of these dictionaries are actually in ispell/myspell format
and hunspell is actually backwards compatible with them?

as far as a "spec" for all of these, good luck :)

when i was looking at this I looked at stuff like:
* http://pwet.fr/man/linux/fichiers_speciaux/hunspell
* http://www.openoffice.org/lingucomponent/affix.readme
                
> Parsing Hunspell affix rules without regexp condition
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4019
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4019
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/analysis
>    Affects Versions: 3.6
>            Reporter: Luca Cavanna
>
> We found out that some recent Dutch hunspell dictionaries contain suffix or prefix rules like the following:
> {code} 
> SFX Na N 1
> SFX Na 0 ste
> {code}
> The rule on the second line doesn't contain the 5th parameter, which should be the condition (a regexp usually). You can usually see a '.' as condition, meaning always (for every character). As explained in LUCENE-3976 the readAffix method throws error. I wonder if we should treat the missing value as a kind of default value, like '.'.  On the other hand I haven't found any information about this within the spec. Any thoughts?

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org