1 Dec 13:30
1 Dec 14:10
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
Olly Betts <olly <at> survex.com>
2011-12-01 13:10:04 GMT
2011-12-01 13:10:04 GMT
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:30:47PM +0100, Sven Hartrumpf wrote:
> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme
> programming language?
Not really. There used to be some SWIG-based guile bindings for Xapian,
but they were never really complete and we eventually just removed them
as it had reached the point where it would be less work to start again
than to try to fix them up.
Cheers,
Olly
1 Dec 15:32
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org>
2011-12-01 14:32:48 GMT
2011-12-01 14:32:48 GMT
On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:10, Olly Betts wrote: >> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme >> programming language? > > Not really. There used to be some SWIG-based guile bindings for Xapian, > but they were never really complete and we eventually just removed them > as it had reached the point where it would be less work to start again > than to try to fix them up. Sven — I was partly responsible for trying to get the guile bindings usable, so I have some interest in this. Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for? J -- -- James Aylett talktorex.co.uk - xapian.org - devfort.com
1 Dec 15:36
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
Dan Colish <dcolish <at> gmail.com>
2011-12-01 14:36:19 GMT
2011-12-01 14:36:19 GMT
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:32 AM, James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:10, Olly Betts wrote:Sven — I was partly responsible for trying to get the guile bindings usable, so I have some interest in this. Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for?
>> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme
>> programming language?
>
> Not really. There used to be some SWIG-based guile bindings for Xapian,
> but they were never really complete and we eventually just removed them
> as it had reached the point where it would be less work to start again
> than to try to fix them up.
J
The best implementation to target is one supported by swig. That makes the choice pretty simple since there is only one, MzScheme/Racket. I would personally like to see a Clisp binding as well.
--Dan
_______________________________________________ Xapian-devel mailing list Xapian-devel <at> lists.xapian.org http://lists.xapian.org/mailman/listinfo/xapian-devel
1 Dec 15:39
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
Dan Colish <dcolish <at> gmail.com>
2011-12-01 14:39:04 GMT
2011-12-01 14:39:04 GMT
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Dan Colish <dcolish <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:32 AM, James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org> wrote:On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:10, Olly Betts wrote:Sven — I was partly responsible for trying to get the guile bindings usable, so I have some interest in this. Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for?
>> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme
>> programming language?
>
> Not really. There used to be some SWIG-based guile bindings for Xapian,
> but they were never really complete and we eventually just removed them
> as it had reached the point where it would be less work to start again
> than to try to fix them up.
J
The best implementation to target is one supported by swig. That makes the choice pretty simple since there is only one, MzScheme/Racket. I would personally like to see a Clisp binding as well.--Dan
Oops, there's also Chicken support in swig.
_______________________________________________ Xapian-devel mailing list Xapian-devel <at> lists.xapian.org http://lists.xapian.org/mailman/listinfo/xapian-devel
1 Dec 17:29
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org>
2011-12-01 16:29:40 GMT
2011-12-01 16:29:40 GMT
On 1 Dec 2011, at 14:36, Dan Colish wrote: >> Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for? > > The best implementation to target is one supported by swig. That makes the choice pretty simple since there is only one, MzScheme/Racket. I would personally like to see a Clisp binding as well. And guileJ -- -- James Aylett talktorex.co.uk - xapian.org - devfort.com
1 Dec 17:31
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
Sven Hartrumpf <hartrumpf <at> gmx.net>
2011-12-01 16:31:59 GMT
2011-12-01 16:31:59 GMT
Hi Schemers! Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:32:48 +0000, james-xapian wrote: > On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:10, Olly Betts wrote: > >>> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme >>> programming language? ... > Sven - was partly responsible for trying to get the guile bindings > usable So, we have found you> so I have some interest in this. Which scheme implementation would > be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for? As you see, others also show their interests ... But here are my preferences: 1. bigloo (there does not seem to be SWIG support yet, so you could skip this one at the moment?) 2. chicken 3. guile Ciao Sven
1 Dec 17:58
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
Dan Colish <dcolish <at> gmail.com>
2011-12-01 16:58:55 GMT
2011-12-01 16:58:55 GMT
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org> wrote:
On 1 Dec 2011, at 14:36, Dan Colish wrote:
>> Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for?
>
> The best implementation to target is one supported by swig. That makes the choice pretty simple since there is only one, MzScheme/Racket. I would personally like to see a Clisp binding as well.And guile
Aww geez, I missed another one!
Sorry Guile.
--Dan
_______________________________________________ Xapian-devel mailing list Xapian-devel <at> lists.xapian.org http://lists.xapian.org/mailman/listinfo/xapian-devel
1 Dec 18:20
Re: Bindings for a Scheme implementation?
James Aylett <james-xapian <at> tartarus.org>
2011-12-01 17:20:26 GMT
2011-12-01 17:20:26 GMT
On 1 Dec 2011, at 16:31, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: > Hi Schemers! I'm more of a protoschemer. I think having good scheme support is going to be beneficial in lots of ways. (Beyond Java-based scheme implementations, which should just be able to use the existing Java bindings — although if there's stuff there we can improve it'll probably benefit other languages on top of the JVM too.) > 1. bigloo (there does not seem to be SWIG support yet, so you could > skip this one at the moment?) I hadn't heard of it…definitely sounds interesting, but yeah — for the future. > 2. chicken > 3. guile Right. I think the way to approach this is twofold: 1. we can pretty quickly experiment with the SWIG chicken support and see what that gives us 2. figure out what idiomatic chicken use of Xapian would look like 2 is best done by someone with more scheme experience than me — even just a rough translation of the simpleindex / simplesearch stuff would help. However, warning: I don't have much time to look at this at all at the momentJ -- -- James Aylett talktorex.co.uk - xapian.org - devfort.com
15 Dec 00:16
How to enable stemming with default_op set to OP_NEAR
Shen Li <te_quira <at> hotmail.com>
2011-12-14 23:16:14 GMT
2011-12-14 23:16:14 GMT
Hi All,
I know that from version 1.2.6, if default_op is OP_NEAR or OP_PHRASE then stemming of the terms is disabled, since positional information isn't indexed for stemmed terms by default. However, I would like to try using OP_NEAR as default_op with stemming because I think the near operator is somehow different from exact phrase. Then I wanna see how the search results looks with this setting compared to those with OP_AND as default_op. However, even I managed to index stemmed terms with position information I couldn't find where to make changes to enable stemming in queryparser. I checked with queryparser.cc and queryparser_internal.cc, but haven't find the exact piece of codes which disabled stemming when default_op is OP_NEAR. So I guess maybe someone here could offer some he lp, and I really appreciate your time!
Thanks,
Shen
I know that from version 1.2.6, if default_op is OP_NEAR or OP_PHRASE then stemming of the terms is disabled, since positional information isn't indexed for stemmed terms by default. However, I would like to try using OP_NEAR as default_op with stemming because I think the near operator is somehow different from exact phrase. Then I wanna see how the search results looks with this setting compared to those with OP_AND as default_op. However, even I managed to index stemmed terms with position information I couldn't find where to make changes to enable stemming in queryparser. I checked with queryparser.cc and queryparser_internal.cc, but haven't find the exact piece of codes which disabled stemming when default_op is OP_NEAR. So I guess maybe someone here could offer some he lp, and I really appreciate your time!
Thanks,
Shen
_______________________________________________ Xapian-devel mailing list Xapian-devel <at> lists.xapian.org http://lists.xapian.org/mailman/listinfo/xapian-devel
RSS Feed