Re: grammar checking

[Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez]

Eli writes:

> From my POV, if people who write doc strings and manual submissions
> for Emacs will be able to have their text proof-read before they
> submit it, it will be an advantage, since the patch reviewers will
> need to invest less time in finding and fixing their grammar mistakes

That could be a valid point, since docstrings require a certain style and
a reduced grammar. But I'm just a frustrated potential user ;-)

> (although probably not in your submissions).

Thanks for the trust, but read them N times before accepting them. As I said,
grammar checking and proof-reading come hand in hand and cost time.
I'm the first to blush at some things I write when on a hurry or overexcited

;-)
/PA

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 15:50, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:52:23 +0200
> >
> > 1. I have worked with different word processors that provide grammar
> > checking in addition to spellchecking. At the end of the day, I had to
> > ignore 49 suggestions to accept a good one, which I would have caught
> > with reasonable proof-reading. Writing is something that needs time.
> > And I feel it every day, even for technical writing. And there are no
> > shortcuts to that.
> >
> > 2. I have tried grammar checking on different languages. Yes, I speak
> > a couple of languages and I write fluently in four. And at the end, I
> > either disable grammar checking or I just leave it there for fun. Some
> > suggestions are as good as spellchecking was 20 years ago. And a good
> > laugh may be worth it, but seriously, I'd rather not use grammar
> > checking when in a hurry.
> >
> > 3. I'm honoured to count professional writers and journalists among my
> > friends and, no, they don't use grammar checking ;-) because they feel
> > the tools currently force them into a style of writing which is not
> > theirs.
>
> That's okay: if this will become part of Emacs, it will be an optional
> feature, so if you don't find it useful, just don't activate it.  Many
> features in Emacs exist only for those who find them useful, and this
> one is no exception.
>
> From my POV, if people who write doc strings and manual submissions
> for Emacs will be able to have their text proof-read before they
> submit it, it will be an advantage, since the patch reviewers will
> need to invest less time in finding and fixing their grammar mistakes
> (although probably not in your submissions).
>
> > I feel it would be more urgent to concentrate on spellchecking and see
> > how to improve support for languages with word composition on current
> > solutions in core Emacs or packages in ELPA.
>
> We will continue developing and improving our spell-checking features
> independently of whether grammar checking will or will not be added.
> There's no zero-sum game here; these are two separate features, and
> none of them will come at the expense of the other.



-- 
Fragen sind nicht da um beantwortet zu werden,
Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden
Georg Kreisler

Headaches with a Juju log:
unit-basic-16: 09:17:36 WARNING juju.worker.uniter.operation we should
run a leader-deposed hook here, but we can't yet