mirror of
https://github.com/keymanapp/keyman.git
synced 2026-10-21 21:37:50 +00:00
docs(web): thoughts toward upcoming changes for preservation transforms
This commit is contained in:
parent
39dd3b50a3
commit
c3e5c66a6e
1 changed files with 15 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -294,6 +294,21 @@ export class ContextState {
|
|||
transformKeys.pop();
|
||||
|
||||
for(let i of transformKeys) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Thinking ahead to multitokenization:
|
||||
*
|
||||
* If what we have is not on the "true" tokenization, then... we need to
|
||||
* do multitoken effects, right? We're basing new suggestions based on a
|
||||
* state that does not currently exist! We'd need to enforce THAT state,
|
||||
* *then* do the suggestion!
|
||||
* - Which gets fun if we auto-apply such a case, as the new "true" tokenization
|
||||
* no longer results directly from the true input.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* If we give tokens unique IDs on first creation, we could backtrace to
|
||||
* find the most recent common ancestor.
|
||||
* - simple cases (same 'token', but different input transform lengths/effects)
|
||||
* will have the same prior token ID
|
||||
*/
|
||||
const primaryInput = bestResultAnalysis.inputs[0].sample.get(i);
|
||||
if(!preservationTransform) {
|
||||
preservationTransform = primaryInput;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue