Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 01:03, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Dov Feldstern <dfeldstern-rhxOsnTko2JWk0Htik3J/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
On the
other hand, I think that it is bad if the spell checker ignores text
which the user thinks that it is checking --- so it should be very
clear to the user what is or is not being checked. And ignoring text
--- any text, even if it isn't going to be output, even if it's in a
code segment --- without letting the user have it spell checked could
be very annoying to some users.
Very good points. We could actually start with another feature:
implement the LocalWords (in emacs parlance) feature: add a button to
the spellchecker saying: accept in this document. The words would be
saved in the document and could be removed/edited later in
Document>Settings.
I like this idea (it was discussed earlier in this thread), but it's
another aspect of spellcheck control.
Me too. BTW, JMarc, if you want a two-digit bug, this is #86 ;)
I think this particular feature is uncontroversial (famous like
words). This should remove the need for being able to mark individual
words as non-spellcheckable.
IMO this does not address exactly the same need. If you put some code
into your paragraph, would you like to add it to such a list. In
addition, you could want the spellchecker to ignore one instance of a
word, but not others of the same word.
Then we should try to see how important it is to add per-inset or
per-layout customisability. I am not 100% convince that everybody
expects that LyXCode is not spell-checked.
Some users use comments, notes to put quick reminders which shouldn't be
spellchecked at all. Other users will e.g. use notes as drafts and could
like them to be spellchecked. Only a per-inset or per-layout approach
can address these needs.
Or per-character (as language or font-attributes), which although
unnecessary for spell-checking purposes, I think would be simpler in the
long run...
