What issues did you have in mind?
FWIW, as I encounter definitions, I’ve tried to do definitions in main by this procedure/algorithm :
Primary Def:
[primary definition word](also: [alt def 1], [alt def 2]) The parenthesis notifies users alt. def 1 & alt. def 2 are both also valid in addition the the “main” definition.
For primary + alt 1 + alt 2, those will be the generalized terms
Manually add {[primary def]; alt def 1; alt def 2} to alt-defs list as separate terms (one per line).
In the visible alt-list, I’ll do [primary def]([synonym 1], [synonym 2], [synonym 3], etc.)
Then in invisible list (added with ‘_’ preface) I’ll add each of the synonyms including primary def individually (so they’re accepted as single answers), then add in variant spellings (UK vs. US English) and phrasing variations. <-- this is a lot of work but it works around test system limitations
I try to avoid bound form definitions and specify the intrinsic meaning of the hanzi. If I do include bound form definitions I try to preface the defs. with (bound form) or (b.f.), so readers/learners will know that’s not the meaning of the character by itself.
There’s lots of aspirational targets (like adding “mw for X” “m.w. for X” “measure word for X” as hidden answers for all measure words, but that’s an extraordinary number of variations when I add in alt. words.) Also grouping all words with multiple subdefs. with ‘(1)FooA(aAlpha, aBeta, aGamma)’, ‘(2)FooB(bAlpha, bGamma, bDelta)’, ‘(3)FooC(cAlpha, cGamma, cDelta)’, and hidden defs “_(1+)FooA”, “_(1+)aAlpha”, “_(1+)aBeta”, “_(1+)aGamma”, “_(2+)FooB”, “_(2+)bAlpha”… until all variations are in. This allows to tester to type any of the valid answers. For instance I always add in “to kill” + “kill” for a kill verb for example (but not for nouns.)
I’ve done the preceding with various test cases but it’s not uniform yet. I’ve tried to do it for ones that have words strewn too haphazardly in the alt-defs list.
