To: Michael J. Mahon Michael J. Mahon wrote:
Isn't that what compilers are for?You're kidding, right? ;-) Compilers are worthless in an environment of many gross errors. Before handing a program of any length to the compiler, I'd at least create a list of unique "words" and their frequencies-- that would expose many of the errors.
Michael:I guess my flippant remark was misconstrued. In the end, the compiler has the last say on whether or not the scanned information constitutes a valid program. That doesn't mean it will work right - O and 0 (O and Zero) are notoriously hard to identify.
But in this case he's not scanning for human consumption, for which 85-90% accuracy is acceptable, but for computer consumption.
Personally, I'd probably just not have wasted the time on the OCR and just retyped it as humans are much better at OCR than machines currently. It's not like the program will work right the first few times it gets through the compiler, it's still going to have to be debugged.
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 A2Central.com - Your total source for Apple II computing.