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

Re: [vim] syntax-files and spellchecking

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Sep 2, 2003
      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 2 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
        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 3 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
          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 4 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
            * 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 5 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
              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 6 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
                * 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 7 of 11 , Sep 3, 2003
                  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 8 of 11 , Sep 5, 2003
                    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 9 of 11 , Sep 5, 2003
                      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.