DunbarX at aol.com
DunbarX at aol.com
Fri Dec 12 17:36:48 EST 2008
Right on all counts.
In HC I absolutely had to keep the dictionary in an external file and load as
needed. TextEdit limits (30K) would not allow a field to hold the data.
I had a "spellCheck" handler run through the text and present all
questionable words and their possible corrections in a list in an external window. Pretty
much like spell checkers generally do. I am just starting to learn
Transcript. I did not intend this to be pretty, in fact I was just trying to see if I
can work this Rev thing at all.
I had tried to cover what I thought might be the most common spelling or
typing mistakes. More work would be needed to cover transposed letters, or much
more deviant misspellings. All three routines I used are pretty much brute force
text crunching. I am trying to think of a way to find close or nearly colose
text matches in a more elegant way; some sort of hash table where the numeric
value of a word can be matched within a certain range of the numeric values of
other words. The number of the beast. How do the grownups do it?
> Not tested your script but two helpful thoughts, I hope:
> 1. Having your dictionary in a field does not sounds so good: you
> should keep it in an external file, load it when needed in a global
> for instance and delete this global when done. This is for RAM usage.
> 2. You use answer dialogs: this does not sounds so good too from an
> ergonomic point of view. Probably could you check last word (when a
> space or a punctuation is typed) and underline it and/or change its
> color for instance. Then a pop up menu would display what you call
> 'possibles' in your script and replace what the user typed if he
> chooses it
Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&
More information about the Use-livecode