On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:52:05PM -0500, Hugh Ranalli wrote:
> Thank you for putting so much effort into this. I think that looks great.
> When I was doing this, I discovered that I could parse both pre- and post-
> r29 versions, so I went with that, but I agree that there's probably no
> good reason to do so.
OK, committed then. I have yet to study yet the other part of the
proposal regarding diatritical characters. Patch 3 has a conflict for
the regression tests, so a rebase would be needed. That's not a big
deal though to resolve the conflict. I am also a bit confused by the
newly-generated unaccent.rules. Why nothing shows up for the second
column (around line 414 for example)? Shouldn't we have mapping
characters?
--
Michael
