[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?
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Arash Esbati, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: jinx, Arash Esbati, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/01
- Re: jinx, Arash Esbati, 2023/04/02
- 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