Re: Thoughts on using aspell for Indian language checking

The patch was against 0.60.4.

I don't really have an opinion on your design questions, except a question
of my own: why do you want the extra information?  I wanted to get the
scores out so that I could (1) filter on them and (2) combine them with
other information (frequency information from another source) to better sort
the result list.

On 11/16/06, Gora Mohanty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 22:41 -0700, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Ethan Bradford wrote:
> >
> > > As luck would have it, I already added the scores to the C
> API.  Depending
> > > on Kevin's and your preferences, I could send you a patch on 0.60.4,
> or
> > > Kevin can get you an early version of the next release, or you can
> just wait
> > > for it...
> >
> > I take it you mean patch [ 1489981 ] Implement export of "Score":
> >
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1489981&group_id=245&atid=300245
> [...]
>
> Some queries for Kevin and Ethan, specifically. I take it that the
> submitted patch is against aspell 0.60.4? I have gone through the
> patch file very quickly to get a flavour for it, and here are some
> additional scoring details that I would like to see returned:
> 1. The word score and soundslike score should be returned separately,
>    in addition to the total score. Actually, in this case, returning
>    the total score can be dispensed with, as it can be calculated from
>    the other two scores, given the known weights.
> 2. I am not sure if this is a good idea, but I was thinking that it
>    should be possible to separately access scores after each step in
>    Working::get_suggestions(), i.e., after each time that score_list()
>    is called, and finally after fine_tune_score() is called. This would
>    make it possible for someone testing the working of aspell in a new
>    language/domain to access all relevant details.
>      One way to do this in Ethan's patch would be to make
>    SuggestWordListImpl::suggestions an array of NearMissesFinal objects.
>    The size of the array is known beforehand (the total no. of calls to
>    score_list(), and to fine_tune_score()), and the index into the array
>    defines the point at which the scores for the list of suggestions
>    in that element were recorded. The scores for the suggestions in each
>    array element are entered by calling transfer() after each call to
>    score_list(), with the current index into the array as an argument.
>    For calls to score_list() that are skipped by the setting of
>    suggestion mode, the corresponding element will just be a zero-length
>    Vector. The last non-zero-length element in the array is always the
>    final set of scores.
>      Thus, in the public C interface, aspell_scored_suggest() would
>    return the final set of scores (as Ethan does now), but a second
>    function, say aspell_scored_steps_suggest(), with the desired array
>    index as parameter could return the set of scores at the desired
>    step.
> 3. Currently, the patch I have for changing soundslike weight, and edit
>    distance costs uses separate class methods for each such parameter,
>    e.g., get_del1_cost()/set_del1_cost(), with the methods exported
>    upwards till they are exposed through similarly named functions in
>    the C interface. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with this
>    approach, though it adds many tiny functions to several classes. Is
>    this an acceptable design?
>
> If nobody sees any major issues with the above points, I will write up
> a short design document, and work on a patch over the next few days.
>
> Regards,
> Gora
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aspell-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Aspell-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-devel