[pt] Added rule ID:PARA_NADA_DESNECESSARIAMENTE #10904
Conversation
WalkthroughA new rule has been added to the Portuguese language module of LanguageTool, specifically in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
languagetool-language-modules/pt/src/main/resources/org/languagetool/rules/pt/style.xml (2)
3622-3630: Pattern matching logic is comprehensive and flexible.The rule's pattern effectively captures a wide range of scenarios where "para nada" might be used inappropriately in formal contexts. The extensive verb list and flexible matching for articles, numerals, and nouns demonstrate a thorough approach.
Consider breaking down the long list of verbs into smaller, semantically grouped lists for easier maintenance. This could be achieved using entity references in XML. For example:
<!ENTITY action_verbs "adjudicar|administrar|afligir|aguardar|ajudar|..."> <!ENTITY cognitive_verbs "analisar|antecipar|avaliar|considerar|..."> <!-- More verb categories --> <token regexp='yes' inflected='yes'>&action_verbs;|&cognitive_verbs;|...</token>This approach would make the rule more maintainable and easier to update in the future.
3631-3634: Message and examples are clear and effective.The suggestion message and examples effectively demonstrate the rule's purpose and application. They provide clear guidance for users on how to improve their formal language usage.
Consider adding a brief explanation of why "desnecessariamente" is preferred in formal contexts. This could enhance the educational value of the rule. For example:
<message>Num contexto formal, empregue <suggestion>desnecessariamente</suggestion> em vez de "para nada". Esta substituição torna a frase mais concisa e adequada ao tom formal.</message>This addition would provide users with a better understanding of the reasoning behind the suggestion.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- languagetool-language-modules/pt/src/main/resources/org/languagetool/rules/pt/style.xml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
languagetool-language-modules/pt/src/main/resources/org/languagetool/rules/pt/style.xml (2)
3620-3621: LGTM: Rule definition and attributes are well-structured.The rule definition follows the established conventions and includes appropriate attributes. The use of 'temp_off' as the default setting is a good practice for new rules.
3620-3634: Overall, excellent addition to the Portuguese language module.This new rule,
PARA_NADA_DESNECESSARIAMENTE, is a valuable addition to the LanguageTool project's Portuguese module. It effectively addresses the use of "para nada" in formal contexts, suggesting the more appropriate "desnecessariamente". The implementation is thorough, with a comprehensive verb list and flexible pattern matching.A few minor suggestions have been made to potentially improve maintainability and user understanding, but these are not critical for the functionality of the rule.
This contribution aligns well with the PR objectives, enhancing the formal language style checking capabilities of LanguageTool for Portuguese. Great work, @marcoagpinto!
|
I think this rule is mostly applicable to pt-PT. The word use/structuring here is not really common in pt-BR. I suggest moving the rule to the pt-PT grammar to avoid complications. |
|
I will approve this so we can check the diff though. Pull another request before you remove the temp_off, and we'll see if this is dialect-biased :) |
Sure, Susana, thanks! So much to do and so little time. 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 |
Heya, @susanaboatto and @p-goulart ,
Here is a brand-new rule.
This and the next one must be ready already for a week or so, but I have been waiting for the official release of LanguageTool to start creating pull requests again without the pressure of feature freeze time.
Summary by CodeRabbit