Aspell considers words with underscores or dashes as two, e.g. cloud-based is spell checked as "cloud" and "based". Is there any way to specify the word delimiters so as to exclude dash and underscore?
If I understand the question correctly, Aspell cannot do exactly what you want (up to my knowledge). This has to do with conditional compound word treatment, which is on the Aspells TODO list.
On the same list it is mentioned that Hunspell does a better job with compound words, so it might be a viable alternative if you're not bound to Aspell.
OpenOffice uses Hunspell for spellchecking, so it is easy to find out whether it fits your requirements. It does, at least, work for the "cloud-based" example, and does NOT consider all hyphenated words unconditional compounds, i.e. "based-cloud" would not be considered a spelling error.
Aspell is unable to do what you want it to do at this point. The interface it uses for handling word with symbols in them is not sophisticated enough to handle such a case at this time. More information on this is listed here.
Sorry that this cannot be solved up to this point, unless you want to implement your own interface. I would recommend using Hunspell as Mikhail suggested.
Related
One thing that constantly annoys me about VS is that when I do a Find or Find all, it looks in comments, strings, and other places. When I'm trying to find a particular bit of code, like and rent, it finds it all over. Is there a way to limit searches just to code?
Not sure if there is a specific setting to ignore comments, but you could do a regex find. For example, assuming you want to find "text", you could use this:
^(?!\s*?//).*?text
Caveats:
Assumes comments start with // as first non-whitespace characters. E.g. C# comment types
Doesn't work for comments at the end of code lines (only comments on their own lines)
Doesn't work with block comments, for example /* comment */
So overall it isn't perfect by any means, but depending how many hits you are getting, it might help to cut them down which can be useful if you have a lot of false positives in one-liner comments
The 'Find All References' function may suit you : it ignores all commented-out code and text in strings. CTRL+K, R is the keyboard shortcut.
(Note that it's designed for going from a specific instance of a search string to all other instances. so if you haven't already found an instance of what you're searching for, you would have to (temporarily) type one in to the editor window, then search. Also it's not available for all languages : I know it works fine for C#, though.)
We are confronting different search engines for our research
archives and having browsed the Xapian-Omega documentation, we
decided to try it out since the Omega option appears to be an
appropriate solution with several interesting search options.
We installed Xapian-Omega on a Linux Server (Deb 7) and tested
the setup with success. However we are unsure as to how one can
employ or perhaps even enable the use of Wild Cards or Regular
Expressions with Xapian-Omega.
We read that for Xapian one has to enable the Wild Card option
"QueryParser flags"
Could someone clarify this ?
ie. explain with or indicate a page with an example or two.
But we did not see much information regarding examples with Omega
CGI and although this latter runs well, wild card options
(such as * for the general wild card and ? as a single character),
do not seem to work as expected by default and they would be
useful, even though stemming and substrings etc may be functional.
Eg: It would be interesting to be able to employ standard simple
wild char searches with a certain precision such as :
medic* for medicine medical medicament
or with ? for single characters
Can Regexp be recognised with Omega ?
eg : sep[ae]r[ae]te(\w+)?
or searching for structured formats such as Email or Credit Card
Numbers or certain formula types in research papers etc.
In a note from Olly Betts long ago (Dev Mailing List) regarding
this one suggestion was to grep the index file but this would
defeat the RAD advantage of Omega.
Any examples of searches using Omega with Wild Cards or Regular
Expressions would be most appreciated ... even an indication of
a page where information regarding this theme is well presented
with examples illustrating how to develop advanced searches
using Xapian alone would be most welcome (PHP or Python perhaps).
(We are not concerned for the moment about the eventual
substantial increase in the size of the index size or in the
time to index the archive)
You can enable right-wildcards (such as "medic*") in Omega using $set{flag_wildcard,1} (covered in the Omegascript documentation), which enables FLAG_WILDCARD. There's a section in the user manual on using wildcards.
Xapian doesn't provide support for regular expression searching, although in theory I believe it would be possible to support, if potentially costly (depending on the regex). It would have to run the regular expression against unstemmed terms in the database, and then feed them into the search. Where it becomes difficult is if the regex expands to a lot of terms (eg just 'a' as a regex). There's also some subtlety in making it efficient; it's easy to jump through the term list to something with a constant prefix, and you'd want to take advantage of that if possible.
For your example of sep[ae]r[ae]te(\w+)?, it sounds like you actually want a combination of spelling correction (for the a-e substitutions, which you can enable using $set{flag_spelling_correction,1}) and stemming (for the trailing letters after 'te'; Omega defaults to English stemming, but that can be changed), or either wildcard or partial match support.
If you do need regular expressions for your use case, then I'd suggest bringing it up on the xapian-discuss mailing list. Xapian has moved on since the last discussion, and I believe it would be easier to build such support now than it was then.
James Ayatt: Thank you for your answer and help, my apologies for this belated reply, a distraction with other work.
We had already seen the Omegascript page but it was not clear to us how to employ these options with the CGI interface. Also the use of * seems to be for trailing chars, is that correct ? ie not for internal groups of words eg: omeg*ipt; there are cases where the stemming option would not be sufficient. We did not see an option for single wild chars, sometimes represented by ? in certain search engines. Could you comment here ?
Regarding the use of regular expressions we had immagined that it might not be quite as simple as one could hope. The examples mentioned in the preceding post were of course simple possible uses, there are of course many more. Your comment on using the stemming option seems appropriate.
In certain cases it could be interesting to enable some type of regexp option for the extraction of text forms, such as those mentioned. The quick extractiion of such text, perhaps together with some surrounding text could be very useful.
We will certainly try your proposal with the mailing list.
Thank you again.
In a part of my software I need, in different languages, lists of words having a fixed number of letters.
My software is already internationalized (using gettext, and it works fine). But, as it's not possible to translate a 4 letters word from english into a 4 letters word in another language (apart from some exceptions maybe), I can't imagine a reasonable way of letting gettext deal with these words lists.
So, for now, I decided to store my words like this (shortened example with english and french names):
FOUR_LETTERS_WORDS = { 'fr': ["ANGE", "ANIS", "ASIE", "AUBE", "AVEN", "AZUR"],
'en': ["LEFT", "LAMP", "ATOM", "GIRL", "PLUM", "NAVY", "GIFT", "DARK"] }
(This is python syntax, but the problem has not much to do with the programming language used)
The lists do not need to have the same length; they do not need to contain the same words.
My problem is following: if my software is to be translated in another language, like say, german, then all the strings that fall within the scope of gettext will be listed in the pot file and will be available for translation. But then, I also need a list of 4 letters words in german, that won't show up in the translation file.
I would like to know whether I need to think to ask the translator if he/she can also provide a list of such words, or if there's a better way to deal with this situation? (maybe finding a satisfying workaround with gettext?).
EDIT Realized the question has actually not much to do with the programming language, so removed the python* tags
You can do it with gettext. It's possible to use "keys" instead of complete sentences for translation.
If you use sentences in your .po files and don't want to have to translate the main language (let's say english), you don't need to translate them and only provide translation files for these words. If gettext finds a translation file, it uses it, else it will display the key (the msgid). It can be a complete sentence or a key, it does not matter.
To do that, you simply need to use a specific text domain for these words and use dgettext() function. The domain allows you to separate files depending on context, or whatever criteria of your choice (functionnality, sub-package, etc.).
To count these words, it's not as easy. You can count them with grep -c, for instance. You can provide a specific key that contains the number of 4 letters words (this would be a dirty hack on which you could probably not really rely).
Maybe there's another way in Python, I don't know this language...
I'm writing a search tool for searching code but I'm having a hard time finding the right analyzer to use. I've tried doing a whitespace analyzer but you end up with issues where you might have dbo.My_Procedure and searching "my_procedure" should work as well as searching ".My_Procedure". My idea is to split on special characters but store them into their own tokens as well. But then if you write my_procedure as a search it will just look for my, _ and procedure anywhere in the file unless you wrap it in quotes (even though to the user it looks like it's just one word). What approach have people taken for analyzing code?
If your code is in Java, according to Java naming conventions your methods and classes should be camel-case so you should not run into names like my_search but rather mySearch.
If that is the case - you can use the (default) standard analyzer which uses word boundaries as delimiters for split.
That said, if there's no way around it and you have to consider names like my_search in the tokenizing part, you can implement your own custom analyzer.
This answer shows an example of setting a custom-analyzer.
I've written a little program to download images to different folders from the web. I want to create a quick and dirty batch file syntax and was wondering what the best delimiter would be for the different variables.
The variables might include urls, folder paths, filenames and some custom messages.
So are there any characters that cannot be used for the first three? That would be the obvious choice to use as a delimiter. How about the good old comma?
Thanks!
You can use either:
A Control character: Control characters don't appear in files. Tab (\t) is probably the best choice here.
Some combination of characters which is unlikely to occur in your files. For e.g. #s# etc.
Tab is the generally preferred choice though.
Why not just use something that exists already? There are one or two choices, perl, python, ruby, bash, sh, csh, Groovy, ECMAscript, heavens for forbid windows scripting files.
I can't see what you'd gain by writing yet another batch file syntax.
Tabs. And then expand or compress any tabs found in the text.
Choose a delimiter that has the least chance of collision with the names of any variable that you may have (which precludes #, /, : etc). The comma (,) looks good to me (unless your custom message has a few) or < and > (subject to previous condition).
However, you may also need to 'escape' delimiter characters occurring as part of the variables you want to delimit.
This sounds like a really bad idea. There is no need to create yet another (data-representation) language, there are plenty ones which might fit your needs. In addition to Ruby, Perl, etc., you may want to consider YAML.
Designing good syntax for these sort of this is difficult and fraught with peril. Does reinventing the wheel ring a bell?
I would use '|'
It's one of the rarest characters.
How about String.fromCharCode(1) ?