[Grammar checker] Undocumented change in the API for LO 4

[Marcin Milkowski]

Hi all,

what's the supposed regression, exactly? Do we have only sentences as
segmented by LO? This would be a serious drawback as ICU methods are less
than perfect, and our results are much more reliable (the BreakIterator
simply uses a static list of abbreviations which is a vast simplification
that cannot really capture a lot of ambiguous dots, so it's broken by
design).

Best,
Marcin

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Németh László <nemeth at numbertext.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If I right know, that was an intended change from the original author,
> Thomas Lange, supported by the contributors, eg. Marcin Miłkowski and
> Daniel Naber, for the real needs, better sentence boundary
> disambiguation and grammar checking by LanguageTool and other grammar
> checker components. So the recent state is a drawback. I suggest to
> revert it (maybe it would be fine to add some comments to the
> ProofreadingResult.idl to prevent from similar changes, too).
>
> Best regards,
> László
>
> 2013/3/4 Olivier R. <olivier.noreply at gmail.com>:
> > Caolán McNamara wrote
> >> do you get the pre LO 4 behaviour ?
> >
> > Probably.
> > With LO 3, in doProofreading:
> > - nStartOfSentencePos was always the beginning of the paragraph (=0)
> > - nSuggestedSentenceEndPos was always the end of the paragraph (=length
> of
> > rText)
> >
> > And each paragraph was passed once to the GC.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Assuming that you do, then it appears to me that the current LO4
> >> behaviour is the original programmer intent and that the intermediate
> >> behaviour was a bug (from the programmer intent perspective anyway) in
> >> whatever versions got released between
> >> 9f2fde7ab5de20926bb25a6b298b4e5dffb66eb2 and LO4
> >
> > Yes, we can assume that was the original programmer intent.
> > But it worked another way for 3 years and nobody complained about it. :)
> > I prefer the unintended behavior, as LO does not  assume wrongly what is
> the
> > end of sentences.
> >
> > So what LO will do?
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Grammar-checker-Undocumented-change-in-the-API-for-LO-4-tp4030639p4041580.html
> > Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreOffice mailing list
> > LibreOffice at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20130305/b15b5034/attachment-0001.html>