Possible bug in en_GB .AFF file?

[Marco A.G.Pinto]

Hello!

I am getting ready to release tonight the en_GB speller forked by me.

I am confused because the code "O" appears both as SFX and PFX:
*PFX O Y 1**
**PFX O 0 non- . *

*SFX O Y 12**
**SFX O 0 l a **
**SFX O e al [^bcgv]e **
**SFX O e ial [bcgv]e **
**SFX O 0 ial [bcrx] **
**SFX O um al um **
**SFX O 0 al [^u]m **
**SFX O y al ty **
**SFX O y ial [^t]y **
**SFX O 0 ual [px]t **
**SFX O 0 tal [iu]t **
**SFX O 0 al [^ipux]t **
**SFX O 0 al [^aebcrtxmy]*

Is this a bug in the .AFF?

Which one should be used?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
>Marco A.G.Pinto
------------------------

[Kevin Scannell]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Marco A.G.Pinto
<marcoa...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am getting ready to release tonight the en_GB speller forked by me.
>
> I am confused because the code "O" appears both as SFX and PFX:
> *PFX O Y 1**
> **PFX O 0 non- . *
>
> *SFX O Y 12**
> **SFX O 0 l a **
> **SFX O e al [^bcgv]e **
> **SFX O e ial [bcgv]e **
> **SFX O 0 ial [bcrx] **
> **SFX O um al um **
> **SFX O 0 al [^u]m **
> **SFX O y al ty **
> **SFX O y ial [^t]y **
> **SFX O 0 ual [px]t **
> **SFX O 0 tal [iu]t **
> **SFX O 0 al [^ipux]t **
> **SFX O 0 al [^aebcrtxmy]*
>
> Is this a bug in the .AFF?
>

Yes, I'd assign a new flag to one of the two. The good news is that
only one word in the .dic file seems to use the "O" flag:

fiction/MSOo

at least in the version I'm looking at. Just add the newly created
flag to this one word and behavior should be unchanged.

Kevin

[Marco A.G.Pinto]

Hello Kevin,

After writing my e-mail I improved my tool to allow using codes both for
prefix and suffix: http://i.imgur.com/XrBGgyX.jpg

This, because the "O" code as a prefix adds "non-".

If you see the screenshot, it now makes sense:
non-fiction (prefix)
fictional (suffix)

ahhhh... I am in the right path!

Thanks!

Kind regards,
>Marco A.G.Pinto
-----------------------

[Kevin Scannell]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Marco A.G.Pinto
<marcoa...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> Hello Kevin,
>
> After writing my e-mail I improved my tool to allow using codes both for
> prefix and suffix: http://i.imgur.com/XrBGgyX.jpg
>
> This, because the "O" code as a prefix adds "non-".
>
> If you see the screenshot, it now makes sense:
> non-fiction (prefix)
> fictional (suffix)
>

Yes, that's the behavior of hunspell too, but I still think it's a bad idea.

(1) It's confusing for future dictionary maintainers
(2) You can't add the affixes independently when appropriate, e.g.
alcoholic -> non-alcoholic, but *alcoholical

Kevin