Improved Tokenize documentation + added TokenizerI as superclass for TweetTokenizer #2878
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
By subclassing it with TokenizerI
…nt/tokenize_documentation
|
Resolved merge conflicts with |
|
Thanks @tomaarsen! |
|
Gladly! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello!
Pull request overview
span_tokenizeandtokenizeforNLTKWordTokenizerandTreebankWordTokenizer.TokenizerIthe superclass forTweetTokenizer, which adds thetokenize_sentsmethod for free.The documentation changes speak for themselves, so I'll only briefly discuss the other changes.
New superclass for
TweetTokenizerTweetTokenizeris (I believe) the only tokenizer that didn't subclass fromTokenizerIyet. Making it subclass fromTokenizerIwill automatically implementtokenize_sentsfor us, and allow easier implementation oftokenize_spanin the future.I've added a test to show that this works correctly.
Oh, also, I made a small mistake with git, so there's one unrelated commit which I didn't see until just now. It doesn't affect the PR and It shouldn't matter if we just squash and merge anyways, but it can be removed from the squash commit message.