[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 14:21:25 +0300

> From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  rms@gnu.org,  m.eliachevitch@posteo.de,
>   emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 10:29:13 +0200
> So I'd suggest a generic API on these lines:
> #+begin_src emacs-lisp
> (defvar spelling-ignore-functions nil
>   "Hook used to determine if a word should be excluded from spell checking.
> These functions are called with two arguments, the start and end
> positions of a word, until a non-nil value is returned.  Any
> result other than nil or `never' indicates that the word should
> be excluded from spell checking.

If we pass START and END, why does the region have to be a single
"word"? why not let the caller specify a larger region to be skipped?

> Modes derived from `prog-mode' should leave it up to the spell
> checker to decide whether or not to ignore comments, strings or
> code regions.  They may provide more specific rules, if desired,
> but this typically not needed.

Why?  I thought the purpose of this is to override what the
spell-checker knows, and that includes comments and strings, if
needed.  So I see no reason for such a recommendation.

> (defun spelling-ignored-p (start end)
>   "Return non-nil if the word between START and END should not be spell 
> checked.
> See `spelling-ignore-functions' for information on how this is
> determined."
>   (save-excursion

Why do we need save-excursion?

> The above would go into a “neutral” place like simple.el.

Why not ispell.el?  All the spelling functions use ispell.el anyway.
simple.el is preloaded, so having this there bloats every Emacs
session for no good reason, IMO.

reply via email to

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