[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jinx
From: |
Arash Esbati |
Subject: |
Re: jinx |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Apr 2023 13:29:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> This is again not TeX-specific. Similar issues exist in Texinfo and
> in other markup languages. The annoyance is usually minor: it's
> enough to tell the speller to "accept" a word just once, since the
> number of markup codes is usually very small.
I see your point, but I think Emacs could do better.
> But it would be nicer, of course, if Emacs could automatically skip
> markup in each major mode.
I second this: Emacs should skip markup in each major mode, and it is a
pity that the support for things like texinfo and/or org-mode is
somewhat poor. This was my motivation to add a library to AUCTeX for
ispell and adjust most of it style files to use it.
> We should keep in mind that spell-checking technical text will
> inevitably produce quite a few false positives, due to the jargon,
> acronyms, file names, and other similar stuff. I don't see how this
> could be solved in principle without risking false negatives, which is
> worse.
True. OTOH, Emacs could skip the markup where we know it can be
ignored, take for example @file{filename}. Currently, both ispell and
flyspell try to correct the filename argument. Here a nonsensical
example how flyspell looks in texinfo-mode with Emacs -Q:

So if I could make a wish, I'd like to see a general infrastructure
where one can do things like in `ispell-skip-region-alist', looking for
font-lock and all the other techniques lying around and ispell, flyspell
and others would use this infrastructure and not bake their own stuff.
Best, Arash
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Arash Esbati, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Arash Esbati, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx,
Arash Esbati <=
- Re: jinx, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/04/03
- Re: jinx, Michael Eliachevitch, 2023/04/03
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/03
- Re: jinx, Michael Eliachevitch, 2023/04/03
- Re: jinx, Richard Stallman, 2023/04/03
- Re: jinx, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/04/04
- Re: jinx, Richard Stallman, 2023/04/04
- Re: jinx, Philip Kaludercic, 2023/04/05
- Re: jinx, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/04/05
- Re: jinx, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/04/05