order of options to ngram-count
deliverable at gmail.com
Fri Nov 2 07:48:10 PDT 2007
Ilya, thanks! Umm, I've typed these lines anew from what I've run
before -- and there was a real -order 1 there. In any case, my
control run shows OK now.
I understand there's a tradition, so in case more GNU compliance is
desired, options with long names may start with -- as an option. :)
On Nov 2, 2007, at 3:22 PM, ilya oparin wrote:
> It looks like in your first "run forever" line you
> forgot to put "-" right before "order" option, so
> ngram-count just skips this invalid option and build
> default trigrams instead of unigrams. In case you have
> large data, that would take long.
More information about the SRILM-User