[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: jinx

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: jinx
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 10:20:10 +0300

> From: Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  m.eliachevitch@posteo.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:35:25 +0200
> > (I wonder why the built-in TeX support in the spell-checker doesn't do
> > this job, it's supposed to be adequate, and all Emacs needs to do is
> > to tell the speller it is working on TeX text.  So I don't even
> > understand why we need to skip something on our own in these cases.)
> I can only tell for hunspell: It has built-in support for skipping of
> many macro arguments and environments[1], but:
>   a) It is not complete (and probably will never be)
>   b) It cannot work for user defined macros/environments, and this is
>   where AUCTeX/ispell shine: AUCTeX can parse user defined
>   macros/environments and add them automatically to
>   `ispell-tex-skip-alists'.
>   c) Another advantage of `ispell-tex-skip-alists' is that one can write
>   a function and put that in `ispell-tex-skip-alists' for certain
>   macros/environments: That gives us a lot of flexibility to precisely
>   skip or check.

These issues are not TeX-specific, so they should be handled in a more
general way, not bound to TeX/LaTeX.  In particular, any "tex-skip"
features should not supplant the TeX support built into the speller,
they should only _add_ skip regexps for stuff that the speller cannot
support, like user-defined macros.

I'm not sure I understand item c), though: when and why would one want
to spell-check macros and environments?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]