No, arm would probably be slow as well; I'm running sword on a arm based
linux handheld. I definitely would ~not~ want to slow down the search,
it's slow enough as it is, and memory is definitely important as well, so
having a large search index would not be useful to me.
--
jordan
On Wed, 11
> On September 9, 2002 07:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Bible is 31102 (if I counted correctly) verses. It is ~3.8Kbytes if a bit
> > for every verse.
>
> You counted all the verses in the Bible?! (grin)
>
> > Searching for "Christ & (God | Father)" we can construct 3 such bit vectors
> > (~1
On September 9, 2002 07:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bible is 31102 (if I counted correctly) verses. It is ~3.8Kbytes if a bit
> for every verse.
You counted all the verses in the Bible?! (grin)
> Searching for "Christ & (God | Father)" we can construct 3 such bit vectors
> (~10.6Kbytes) and t
I thought faster searching had been implemented a while back, and a tool
produced to create the indexes required from an existing module...?
Lots of discussions went on about it, techniques, requirements, etc.
I bought the book "Managing Gigabytes - Compressing and Indexing Documents
and Images"
> > Then we can ask users to send us their (if high quality)
> databases and merge
> > these. Hopefully we will have a big database of the most often searched
> > strange words.
>
> Or we could just pull inflectional/derivational forms from dictionaries
> like Websters. I can draw up such a wordl
SORRY IF I BY MISTAKE RESEND THIS LETTER SECOND TIME.
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>
> Good points. It's even more important in some languages that have unusual
> inflectional morphology, like infixation (think of marking -ed for past
> tense in the middle of the word) and suprafixa
SORRY IF I BY MISTAKE RESEND THIS LETTER SECOND TIME.
Bible is 31102 (if I counted correctly) verses. It is ~3.8Kbytes if a bit for
every verse.
Searching for "Christ & (God | Father)" we can construct 3 such bit vectors
(~10.6Kbytes) and then make logical operations over these.
Such the way
I like this idea, but I am not sure how it would work with the other non-Latin
character languages, I only use english parts of Sword though. So I might not
be able to help greatly with the testing of this one, but I like the sound of
it. In this example, I would guesss that for useing the word
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then we can ask users to send us their (if high quality) databases and merge
> these. Hopefully we will have a big database of the most often searched
> strange words.
Or we could just pull inflectional/derivational forms from dictionaries
like We
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>
> Good points. It's even more important in some languages that have unusual
> inflectional morphology, like infixation (think of marking -ed for past
> tense in the middle of the word) and suprafixation (e.g. tone differences
> marking tense or person).
Bible is 31102 (if I counted correctly) verses. It is ~3.8Kbytes if a bit for
every verse.
Searching for "Christ & (God | Father)" we can construct 3 such bit vectors
(~10.6Kbytes) and then make logical operations over these.
Such the way we can implement reasonably fast searching in paragraph
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Nikolay Igotti wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
>
> > Verses are arbitrary and man made but they are a useful tool and they are the
> > mechanism that everybody who uses the Bible is used to so I would rather
> > stick with this. One of the features I me
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> Verses are arbitrary and man made but they are a useful tool and they are the
> mechanism that everybody who uses the Bible is used to so I would rather
> stick with this. One of the features I mentioned in my first email is a
> proximity and operato
Lamar Owen wrote:
> ...
> And I know my usage of these terms (as well as Mr. Friedl's) is somewhat
> irregular, since the NFA and DFA concepts are used for much more than regular
> expressions.
Thanks for the summary. I'll have to check out the book you mentioned
and the docs for the various pac
On Monday 09 September 2002 12:27 pm, Matthew Donadio wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Of course, if the existing one is DFA, and the replacement is NFA,
> > then some regexes may break in subtle ways See the O'Reilly regex
> > book for details on how deterministic finite automatons and
> > non-
Lamar Owen wrote:
> Of course, if the existing one is DFA, and the replacement is NFA,
> then some regexes may break in subtle ways See the O'Reilly regex book
> for details on how deterministic finite automatons and non-deterministic
> finite automatons differ from the point of view of crafti
On Sunday 08 September 2002 04:12 pm, Chris Little wrote:
> FWIW, we need to upgrade our regexp engine. The current one (from GNU)
> Perl Regexp fixes both of these problems. We can use it under the
> Artistic License & it's got nice UTF-8 support built in. I nominate
> switching to this as a
On Monday 09 September 2002 02:58 am, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> > I always thought it was doing something that emacs didn't already do ^_~
>
> I'm confused. You seem to be implying that there is something that emacs
> can't do.
I didn't say that now did I? I never used the word "can't" just the w
On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 23:49, David's Mailing List and Spam Reciever
wrote:
> On Sunday 08 September 2002 09:40 pm, Leon Brooks wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:32, Chris Little wrote:
> > > The REAL reason to keep it is because of geek appeal. What kind of free
> > > software project would we be
On Sunday 08 September 2002 09:40 pm, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:32, Chris Little wrote:
> > The REAL reason to keep it is because of geek appeal. What kind of free
> > software project would we be if we didn't support regex? :) And isn't
> > there some unwritten rule about requ
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to use UTF-16 than UTF-8 in regular expressions.
> At least with UTF-16, in most cases, 1 character == 1 symbol so regular
> expressions would be more managable (e.g. what does a dot mean in a regular
> expression when bei
At 07:16 PM 9/8/2002 -0700, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
>I'm sorry I don't know what a .chm file is. Is this something used by
>sword or
>some of the frontends?
HTML Help files are compiled into the .chm format. Sword.chm is the help
file for The SWORD Project for Windows (BibleCS) program.
Jerry
On September 8, 2002 13:12, Chris Little wrote:
> FWIW, we need to upgrade our regexp engine. The current one (from GNU)
> has a couple of problems that I was aware of. First it is GPL--this is
> the last GPL component in the library. If it were replaced with something
> else, we could license
On September 8, 2002 13:32, Chris Little wrote:
> Good points. It's even more important in some languages that have unusual
> inflectional morphology, like infixation (think of marking -ed for past
> tense in the middle of the word) and suprafixation (e.g. tone differences
> marking tense or pers
On September 8, 2002 14:14, Daniel Freedman wrote:
> with regard to searching...it is important to keep the old way as an
> alternativeremember to realease a .chm file with all the relavent help
> items so that users are able to use both and understand the difference...
I'm sorry I don't kno
On September 8, 2002 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, I remembered that some day I compared some paragraph splittings from
> OLB with a Holy Roll.
^
So this is where the term holy rollers comes from. I always wondered (grin).
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Joel
On September 8, 2002 09:48, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:42, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> > If any of you can think of an example of something that you do
> > with the current regular expression searching that won't be possible with
> > what I described above, please let me know.
>
> All
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:32, Chris Little wrote:
> The REAL reason to keep it is because of geek appeal. What kind of free
> software project would we be if we didn't support regex? :) And isn't
> there some unwritten rule about requiring Linux programs to use regex?
Actually, I think the litmus
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:12, Chris Little wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jerry Hastings wrote:
>> At 12:48 AM 9/9/2002 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
>>> All verses containing two or more of God, Good or Greed: (g[ore]*d){2,}
>> I don't believe that gives the desired result. At least not in BibleCS.
> FWI
with regard to searching...it is important to keep the old way as an
alternativeremember to realease a .chm file with all the relavent help
items so that users are able to use both and understand the difference...
DF
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Everyth
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:42, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> > If any of you can think of an example of something that you do
> > with the current regular expression searching that won't be possible with
> > what I described above, please let me know.
>
> All verses
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jerry Hastings wrote:
> At 12:48 AM 9/9/2002 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
>
> >All verses containing two or more of God, Good or Greed: (g[ore]*d){2,}
>
> I don't believe that gives the desired result. At least not in BibleCS. I
> don't know if that is a front end issue or a l
At 12:48 AM 9/9/2002 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
>All verses containing two or more of God, Good or Greed: (g[ore]*d){2,}
I don't believe that gives the desired result. At least not in BibleCS. I
don't know if that is a front end issue or a lib issue. In the past I have
found that parentheses do
On September 8, 2002 08:59, Chris Little wrote:
> This is somewhat impractical as we do not store paragraph information
> except in the text itself if at all. A great number of our Bibles do not
> indicate any kind of paragraph division. Furthermore I've never heard
> anyone suggest that paragrap
On September 8, 2002 00:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very please also make possibility to search in Bible paragraphs instead of
> Bible verses.
This is a much bigger issue than you may realize. I think fundamental changes
to Sword would be necessary to support this. Fortunately, sword has a fa
And concerning technical details about searching in paragraphs:
Please make searching function taking a callback function which will report
the next paragraph border position and allow so searching in regions (such as
paragraphs) accordingly to this callback. I'm going to write this callback as
> I think that the easiest way to do this, if the modules do not have some
> sort of a paragraph split in them already, is to use the term near. Near
> would mean instead of the search parameters must be in the same verse,
> it could be strung across 3 or so verses. The number of verses could be
>
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > This is because verses are introduced by people and are just arbitrary, but
> > splitting Bible in paragraphs (at least in the correct manuscripts) is
> > inspired by Holy Spirit! So borders of paragraphs is a very important matter
> > (other
On September 8, 2002 01:01, David Burry wrote:
> Awesome! Poor search capability and speed is the primary reason I've been
> only lurking on this list too for so long instead of contributing. I don't
> have the C experience to improve that very much easily, and don't have the
> time to dive in a
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:42, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> If any of you can think of an example of something that you do
> with the current regular expression searching that won't be possible with
> what I described above, please let me know.
All verses containing two or more of God, Good or Greed: (g[or
soon: new improved sword searching
Very please also make possibility to search in Bible paragraphs instead
of
Bible verses.
This is because verses are introduced by people and are just arbitrary,
but
splitting Bible in paragraphs (at least in the correct manuscripts) is
inspired by Holy
On September 7, 2002 23:40, David's Mailing List and Spam Reciever wrote:
>
> I still wouldn't take out regular expressions. There quite powerful and
> facilitate things like searching beginning and ends of
> verses/lines/whatever it ends up being I forget off hand. Additionally,
> regex syntax is
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very please also make possibility to search in Bible paragraphs instead of
> Bible verses.
>
> This is because verses are introduced by people and are just arbitrary, but
> splitting Bible in paragraphs (at least in the correct manuscripts) is
> i
Very please also make possibility to search in Bible paragraphs instead of
Bible verses.
This is because verses are introduced by people and are just arbitrary, but
splitting Bible in paragraphs (at least in the correct manuscripts) is
inspired by Holy Spirit! So borders of paragraphs is a ver
Awesome! Poor search capability and speed is the primary reason I've been
only lurking on this list too for so long instead of contributing. I don't
have the C experience to improve that very much easily, and don't have the
time to dive in and learn at the moment to invent better searching for s
On Sunday 08 September 2002 01:42 am, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> The first area that I will be working on is adding a new type of search to
> Sword. The new search type will be based on typical boolean search
> operations (AND, OR, NOT,and maybe XOR using the operators &, |, !, and ^
> respectively).
46 matches
Mail list logo
