Hello Robert,
you are so right, plurals based on prefixes and suffixes are working.
Plurals based on inserted "و" do not (باب and ابوب).
The few words i had tested where all of the "insert" type and not the
prefix/suffix.
thank you :)
-walid
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 15:0
I guess in that case, my users will be angry :)
the fact is, plural (as an example) is not supported, and that is one of
the most common things that a person doing some search will expect to
not have to worry about.
anyway, will roll it out and see the users' reaction :)
thank you.
-walid
while with the new one, we only got matches for:
|
فّ فُ فٌ فف فِِ فٍ ف
and the likes of that.
-walid
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 09:33 -0400, Robert Muir wrote:
> walid, can you provide any more information other than "very poor result"?
>
&
indexing, tokenizing, stemming and
everything, but causes memory leaks
2- the provided library has a very poor result compared to the aramorph
library.
Is there a plan to have better arabic support with full morphological
analysis support?
walid
