Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [vim] syntax-files and spellchecking

Expand Messages
  • Mathieu CLABAUT
    ... As vimspell devleopper, I totally support Luc Hermitte request. ... ... ... ... And so will I. It indeed seems the
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Luc Hermitte wrote:

      > Hello,
      > I have a little request that I would like syntax-file maintainers to
      > think about.

      As vimspell devleopper, I totally support Luc Hermitte request.

      > I'm currently finishing my spell-checker plugin [1], and I am able to
      > automatically adapt the plugin to most syntax schemes (60 to 80%)
      <snip>
      > The first point is my problem only. However, on the second point, you
      > (syntax-file maintainers) can help me (and the other developers of
      > spellchecker plugins).
      <Big approval nod, here>
      >
      <snip>
      > So, if you have a little time to gave thoughts on what spellchecking
      > could bring to the filetypes (for which you maintain the syntax
      > file) and how to integrate it ("it" being the "@Spell" cluster), I'll be
      > very happy.
      And so will I. It indeed seems the best solution. Syntax-file
      maintainers seem to be the best person to define which part of a file
      may deem spellchecking.

      -mat

      --
      ________________http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.fr.html
      Mathieu CLABAUT mailto:mathieu.clabaut@...
      F2F5 442F F2AC E1D5 9D31 3EFC 842A BC4A 123B 9A65
    • Charles E. Campbell
      ... As the developer of engspchk, I concur. Sounds related to my longstanding request to syntax file writers to have comments contain a cluster (unlike Luc, I
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Luc Hermitte wrote:
        > I have a little request that I would like syntax-file maintainers to
        > think about...
        > So, if you have a little time to gave thoughts on what spellchecking
        > could bring to the filetypes (for which you maintain the syntax
        > file) and how to integrate it ("it" being the "@Spell" cluster), I'll be
        > very happy.

        On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:24:54PM +0200, Mathieu CLABAUT wrote:
        > As vimspell devleopper, I totally support Luc Hermitte request.
        > And so will I. It indeed seems the best solution. Syntax-file
        > maintainers seem to be the best person to define which part of a file
        > may deem spellchecking.

        As the developer of engspchk, I concur. Sounds related to my
        longstanding request to syntax file writers to have comments
        contain a cluster (unlike Luc, I didn't name any specific
        cluster). That way I could add engspchk'ing to the cluster
        which, in turn, would get included by the comment.

        Regards,
        Chip Campbell

        --
        Charles E Campbell, Jr, PhD _ __ __
        Goddard Space Flight Center / /_/\_\_/ /
        cec@... /_/ \/_//_/
        PGP public key: http://www.erols.com/astronaut/pgp.html
      • Luc Hermitte
        Hello, ... Perfectly (almost) ! Thank you for your quick response! (almost - ) It could be also interresting to add the @Spell cluster to cString and
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          * On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
          > > He [Claudio] seems to have written all the syntax files he maintains
          > > with spellchecking considerations in mind. Thus, when a syntax item
          > > may contain text that is "misspellable", he defines that syntax item
          > > with "contains=@Spell". Check $VIMRUNTIME/syntax.java.vim for
          > > instance.
          >
          > I have added @Spell to the cComment groups. Check out the version at:
          > ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/runtime/syntax/c.vim
          > Does this work?

          Perfectly (almost) ! Thank you for your quick response!

          (almost ->) It could be also interresting to add the @Spell cluster to
          cString and cCppString. Adding ",@Spell" to the 4 lines that define
          those two items seems to do the work for C and C++.


          * On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:44:17AM -0400, Charles E. Campbell <cec@...> wrote:
          > As the developer of engspchk, I concur. Sounds related to my
          > longstanding request to syntax file writers to have comments contain a
          > cluster (unlike Luc, I didn't name any specific cluster). That way I
          > could add engspchk'ing to the cluster which, in turn, would get
          > included by the comment.

          Actually, _I_ didn't named the cluster, I've just found out that Claudio
          already the brilliant idea to define this cluster in the several
          syntax-fileshe maintains.
          Then, all we have to do is to agree to a name for all syntax-files and
          use it.

          Regarding the {ft}CommentGroup, I'm using it as a second heuristic when
          @Spell is not defined.

          --
          Luc Hermitte
          http://hermitte.free.fr/vim/
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... Spell checking strings? Hmm, I suppose it could be useful, although you might get quite a few non-errors there. -- Not too long ago, cut and paste was
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Luc Hermitte wrote:

            > * On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
            > > > He [Claudio] seems to have written all the syntax files he maintains
            > > > with spellchecking considerations in mind. Thus, when a syntax item
            > > > may contain text that is "misspellable", he defines that syntax item
            > > > with "contains=@Spell". Check $VIMRUNTIME/syntax.java.vim for
            > > > instance.
            > >
            > > I have added @Spell to the cComment groups. Check out the version at:
            > > ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/runtime/syntax/c.vim
            > > Does this work?
            >
            > Perfectly (almost) ! Thank you for your quick response!
            >
            > (almost ->) It could be also interresting to add the @Spell cluster to
            > cString and cCppString. Adding ",@Spell" to the 4 lines that define
            > those two items seems to do the work for C and C++.

            Spell checking strings? Hmm, I suppose it could be useful, although you
            might get quite a few non-errors there.

            --
            Not too long ago, cut and paste was done with scissors and glue...

            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
            /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
            \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
            \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
          • Luc Hermitte
            ... That s true. However, it could be managed from the spellchecker: I can provide an option to decide whether the spellchecking is done on strings or not [1].
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              * On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 12:06:08PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
              > Spell checking strings? Hmm, I suppose it could be useful, although
              > you might get quite a few non-errors there.

              That's true.

              However, it could be managed from the spellchecker: I can provide an
              option to decide whether the spellchecking is done on strings or not
              [1].
              In the case the option is set to "spellcheck-strings", I need to
              highlight the misspellings within the strings.

              Otherwise, a more complex solution would be to provide two clusters:
              @Spell and @SpellString for instance.

              If the non-error is "%s", it is easy (in my plugin at least) to add it
              to the list of ignored words -- just press <i>.
              But I guess you are refering to things like little abreviations
              programmers like to use (or things like that) since "%s" a cFormat.

              I don't know what others think on this issue.

              [1] I run a big, complex and automatically generated regex to extract only
              the things that can be mispelled (strings and comments).
              --
              Luc Hermitte
              http://hermitte.free.fr/vim/
            • Bram Moolenaar
              ... Ah, yes! An opportunity to add another option! We can t have enough of them! [Sorry, I m a bit frustrated after struggling with installing packages and
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Luc Hermitte wrote:

                > * On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 12:06:08PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                > > Spell checking strings? Hmm, I suppose it could be useful, although
                > > you might get quite a few non-errors there.
                >
                > That's true.
                >
                > However, it could be managed from the spellchecker: I can provide an
                > option to decide whether the spellchecking is done on strings or not
                > [1].
                > In the case the option is set to "spellcheck-strings", I need to
                > highlight the misspellings within the strings.

                Ah, yes! An opportunity to add another option! We can't have enough of
                them!

                [Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated after struggling with installing packages
                and lots of things that should work are failing...]

                Let's try to keep it simple.

                --
                I have to exercise early in the morning before my brain
                figures out what I'm doing.

                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
              • Luc Hermitte
                ... Don t worry. ... Right now, I just put this in the todo list of my plugin (it does not concern the syntax-file), and I may implement it only if some day I
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  * On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                  > > However, it could be managed from the spellchecker: I can provide an
                  > > option to decide whether the spellchecking is done on strings or not
                  > > [1].
                  > > In the case the option is set to "spellcheck-strings", I need to
                  > > highlight the misspellings within the strings.
                  >
                  > Ah, yes! An opportunity to add another option! We can't have enough
                  > of them!
                  >
                  > [Sorry,

                  Don't worry.

                  > I'm a bit frustrated after struggling with installing packages
                  > and lots of things that should work are failing...]

                  Right now, I just put this in the todo list of my plugin (it does not
                  concern the syntax-file), and I may implement it only if some day I have
                  someone asking for such "flexibility"

                  [However, that just concerns _my_ spellchecker plugin. The other
                  similar plugins I know about just "parse" [1] the whole file -- correct
                  me if I'm wrong. In other words, I can't speak for the developers of the
                  other spellchecker plugins. I am just guessing that the end-users will
                  be interrested in highlighting comments and strings.]

                  > Let's try to keep it simple.

                  I try, I try ... but it is not that easy :(
                  So many different configurations, expectations, filetypes, ...

                  [1] or at least, are not directly able to treat the strings differently
                  than the comments if both "export" a same @Spell cluster -- supposing the
                  plugins use @Spell, which is not yet (?) the case.
                  --
                  Luc Hermitte
                  http://hermitte.free.fr/vim/
                • Charles E. Campbell
                  ... Strings are definitely likely to add considerable numbers of errors. I think its more trouble than an extra-option would be worth, myself. I ve added the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                    > Ah, yes! An opportunity to add another option! We can't have enough
                    > of them!

                    Strings are definitely likely to add considerable numbers of errors.
                    I think its more trouble than an extra-option would be worth, myself.
                    I've added the @Spell cluster to 13 syntax highlighting files...

                    On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Luc Hermitte wrote:
                    > [However, that just concerns _my_ spellchecker plugin. The other
                    > similar plugins I know about just "parse" [1] the whole file -- correct
                    > me if I'm wrong. In other words, I can't speak for the developers of the
                    > other spellchecker plugins. I am just guessing that the end-users will
                    > be interrested in highlighting comments and strings.]

                    Engspchk checks non-highlighted text, plus some syntax highlighted
                    files that had their comments containing a cluster (to which I could
                    add spellchecking). Its next release will include @Spell.

                    Regards,
                    Chip Campbell

                    --
                    Charles E Campbell, Jr, PhD _ __ __
                    Goddard Space Flight Center / /_/\_\_/ /
                    cec@... /_/ \/_//_/
                    PGP public key: http://www.erols.com/astronaut/pgp.html
                  • Pan Shizhu
                    ... So, are the @Spell is officially supported as the Spell check cluster? If so, I will add the cluster into my syntax file. Pan
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 5, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Charles E. Campbell wrote:
                      > On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Engspchk checks non-highlighted text, plus some syntax highlighted
                      > files that had their comments containing a cluster (to which I could
                      > add spellchecking). Its next release will include @Spell.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Chip Campbell
                      >

                      So, are the @Spell is officially supported as the Spell check cluster?

                      If so, I will add the cluster into my syntax file.

                      Pan
                    • Bram Moolenaar
                      ... More or less. Other than the discussion of Comments vs Strings I have not heard an objection to using @Spell. -- ARTHUR: Then who is your lord? WOMAN:
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 5, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Pan Shizhu wrote:

                        > Charles E. Campbell wrote:
                        > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Engspchk checks non-highlighted text, plus some syntax highlighted
                        > > files that had their comments containing a cluster (to which I could
                        > > add spellchecking). Its next release will include @Spell.
                        > >
                        > > Regards,
                        > > Chip Campbell
                        > >
                        >
                        > So, are the @Spell is officially supported as the Spell check cluster?
                        >
                        > If so, I will add the cluster into my syntax file.

                        More or less. Other than the discussion of Comments vs Strings I have
                        not heard an objection to using @Spell.

                        --
                        ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
                        WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
                        ARTHUR: What?
                        DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in
                        turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
                        The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python)

                        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                        /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                        \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                        \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.