29-01-2025, 03:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-01-2025, 03:59 PM by Bluetoes101.)
Yeah I think it might be too simple. I could probably fit it on a couple of napkins in a bar. I guess we will see what happens.
I worry a little about making it score better for the sake of it, but I should probably think about stuff like "how many possible glyph sequences of length 3 can either system produce?" - As well as the other information and ideas you have given me, so thank you for taking the time to explain and giving me a look at what may await.
On - "how many possible glyph sequences of length 3 can either system produce?"
Thinking about how this answer could be a "better" one (I haven't checked yet but the answer will be a lot more than CLS)
I have "y" mapped to "X" currently, which is essentially *spacebar*
As "y" is mostly word start and end, I could just un-map it. Now *spacebar* becomes *delete*
This would result in much fewer possible glyph sequences while having a very negligible effect on overall conformance.
I wonder though if the path of deciding "chokyeedy" is "chokeed" rather than "chok-eed-" to appease a scoring metric is "better". Also do the new glyph pairings I create here and there (y in middle of words) have any validity to them if it was me who created them? I suppose I did create "k-e" "d-" so the same question could be asked of that.
This is a core feature of CLS, rare glyphs + q, t, k, p, f are deleted. So in a way I guess I would just be following suit... but, I just don't like the idea.
I worry a little about making it score better for the sake of it, but I should probably think about stuff like "how many possible glyph sequences of length 3 can either system produce?" - As well as the other information and ideas you have given me, so thank you for taking the time to explain and giving me a look at what may await.
On - "how many possible glyph sequences of length 3 can either system produce?"
Thinking about how this answer could be a "better" one (I haven't checked yet but the answer will be a lot more than CLS)
I have "y" mapped to "X" currently, which is essentially *spacebar*
As "y" is mostly word start and end, I could just un-map it. Now *spacebar* becomes *delete*
This would result in much fewer possible glyph sequences while having a very negligible effect on overall conformance.
I wonder though if the path of deciding "chokyeedy" is "chokeed" rather than "chok-eed-" to appease a scoring metric is "better". Also do the new glyph pairings I create here and there (y in middle of words) have any validity to them if it was me who created them? I suppose I did create "k-e" "d-" so the same question could be asked of that.
This is a core feature of CLS, rare glyphs + q, t, k, p, f are deleted. So in a way I guess I would just be following suit... but, I just don't like the idea.