Zompist Bboard Again

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 12:48 pm I've discovered Brassica can accept some outré characters—for my latest work I've successfully employed ⟨∏⟩ as a category identifier.

Indeed, it accepts all Unicode characters and combinations thereof (with the exception of the reserved symbols, hence the discussion of escape characters). Though what you’d want to call a category ⟨∏⟩ for, I don’t know…

(I think you should even be able to use a combining diacritic as a category name. Though please don’t!)

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:47 am What about using & as the escape character? It already has a similar but not confusible use in brasica, to in effect force featural categories to be read as nom-featural ones¹, but you can't use a category as a grapheme, and the context is different – inside, instead of (mostly) outside inline categories, and it's only use in phonetic transcription I'm aware of is as the X-SAMPA for the so-rare-its-existence-is-disputed¹ ⟨ɶ⟩, so it's unlikely it's been used in anyone's sound changes.

Well… technically, the featural syntax &Feature uses a somewhat nasty hack where & is interpreted as part of the name of a category, not as something separate. So I suspect this won’t work.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:01 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 12:48 pm I've discovered Brassica can accept some outré characters—for my latest work I've successfully employed ⟨∏⟩ as a category identifier.

Indeed, it accepts all Unicode characters and combinations thereof (with the exception of the reserved symbols, hence the discussion of escape characters). Though what you’d want to call a category ⟨∏⟩ for, I don’t know…

The choice of character was “I can quickly type this without having to open the Character Selector”.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:51 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:01 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 12:48 pm I've discovered Brassica can accept some outré characters—for my latest work I've successfully employed ⟨∏⟩ as a category identifier.

Indeed, it accepts all Unicode characters and combinations thereof (with the exception of the reserved symbols, hence the discussion of escape characters). Though what you’d want to call a category ⟨∏⟩ for, I don’t know…

The choice of character was “I can quickly type this without having to open the Character Selector”.

Now that’s even more bizarre. What kind of keyboard layout are you using, that you can type ⟨∏⟩ so easily‽

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 11:04 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:51 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:01 pm

Indeed, it accepts all Unicode characters and combinations thereof (with the exception of the reserved symbols, hence the discussion of escape characters). Though what you’d want to call a category ⟨∏⟩ for, I don’t know…

The choice of character was “I can quickly type this without having to open the Character Selector”.

Now that’s even more bizarre. What kind of keyboard layout are you using, that you can type ⟨∏⟩ so easily‽

Mac. Opt + Shift + P = ∏.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 11:50 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 11:04 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 10:51 pm The choice of character was “I can quickly type this without having to open the Character Selector”.

Now that’s even more bizarre. What kind of keyboard layout are you using, that you can type ⟨∏⟩ so easily‽

Mac. Opt + Shift + P = ∏.

Huh, interesting.

The escape character should definitely be a backslash, much more in-line with other programming/markup languages. Just use syntax highlighting on it and the escaped character (maybe pink?) to make it look nice and not clash with the forwardslash. The reason I brought up backticks was you could escape multiple characters by enclosing them in them instead of needing to use multiple backslashes.

I agree that a backslash as an escape character is the Right Thing.

The LORD decrees that the backslash, and no other, shall serve to escape the following character.

The problem with the backslash is that Brassica already uses it to indicate metathesis. Not a high-priority usage, mind you, but I’d prefer to avoid conflicts.

Then represent metathesis with an ampersand?

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 10:34 am Then represent metathesis with an ampersand?

The problem is maintaining compatibility with people's existing files. Often this is more important than 'correcting' non-ideal prior decisions.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:22 pm

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 10:34 am Then represent metathesis with an ampersand?

The problem is maintaining compatibility with people's existing files. Often this is more important than 'correcting' non-ideal prior decisions.

Indeed. Now that Brassica has reached v1.0.0, I’d like to preserve some level of stability.

Apparently the website domain has expired.

ophois wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 8:39 pm Apparently the website domain has expired.

Yes, I’m afraid it has. I will get around to renewing it sometime soon…

For now, you can use the raw IP address: https://159.196.155.101. Yes, I know it gives a warning, but you can ignore that for now (if you look, it’s just saying that site ‘should’ be accessed via bradrn.com).

bradrn.com should be back up and running!

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:33 am bradrn.com should be back up and running!

Congratulations!

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:34 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:33 am bradrn.com should be back up and running!

Congratulations!

Well, I just had to pay, that’s all…

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:33 am bradrn.com should be back up and running!

Yay! Thank you.

Through the result list it is possible to see quite easily which words have been altered by the rules and which ones have not.

I was wondering if it is possible to easily see which rules have NOT been applied for any given word list. Sure, you could peace it together from the "Report rules applied" view, but that quickly becomes very laborious. Is there an alternative?

Having one overview of all rules that have not been triggered would facilitate refactoring of the code and you could see which sound changes were defined, but can just as well be axed.

It would also be a nice feature to have a way of highlighting which words a specific rule applies to. You can do it by deleting and reinserting the rule and highlighting changes from last run though so it's no biggie.