Semgrex contains #1484
Merged
Semgrex contains #1484
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…s which are Maps. Currently the syntax is @, subject to change eg, morphofeatures@foo=bar In this expression, bar can be a regex, but foo and morphofeatures cannot. It might be worth adding regex capabilities for both of those, Also, !@ would be a useful addition. This checks at Semgrex compile time (not Java compile time) that the annotation used for key/value is actually a Map Has a test that the error checking and a simple search both work.
Need to negate the = in the NodePattern output
This map allow repeated elements inside the same brackets
Contributor
Author
|
Discussed syntax with @manning , happy with current status |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add functionality to semgrex to search for/against key/value pairs in fields on words which are maps. Currently the one thing which this really applies to is morphofeatures. When searching on morphofeatures, it matches a key string, then checks that the value does or doesn't match.
Current syntax:
represents a morphofeatures that must have k1=v1, but k2 != v2.
/.../represents regex, whereas not having/.../would force an exact match.