Le 17 août 07 à 12:34, Dov Feldstern a écrit :
It's not just a matter of convenience --- I'm still not convinced
that insets are *conceptually* right in this case.
An inset conveys to me the following idea: I have the main text,
and then inside it is something which is a *break* from the no
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Why InsetCitation?
Because external citation is that's the only use case I can think of.
Saying to the user use the NoSpellCheck inset for citations looks
weird to me. Of course internally it can be called InsetNoSpellChecker.
Well, ther
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "se
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 17 août 07 à 10:36, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
say t
Le 17 août 07 à 10:36, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
say that a char-based approac
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
>>>
>>> This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
>>> say that a char-based approach is needed for this. The only
>>> diff
Le 17 août 07 à 00:56, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
say that a char-based approach is needed for this. The only
difference I s
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
>
> This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
> say that a char-based approach is needed for this. The only
> difference I see is the possibility of having an underline. Thi
Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael --- the reason that I think a character-based solution might be
useful, even though spell-checking is word-based and not
character-base, is that at the conceptual level, what I want to do is
to mark regions of text and give them some att
Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JMarc, I still tend to agree with you on this point. However, I think
> my aborted patch from last night clearly demonstrates that hijacking
> Font is *not* a very good idea. Do you have any other idea of how this
> could be done in a character-based way
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Of course, but as it is a presentation issue, it can be fixed later.
I would rather advocate to use character properties in current code
and switch to insets-as-character-properties later. Any text longer
than one of two w
On Thursday 16 August 2007 21:18:39 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> None of this is horrible to fix, but I think we miss a lot of polish.
OK. :-)
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> charstyles have been introduced because of some shortcomings of our font
>> system, in particular the fact that fonts did not nest correctly. They
>> feel however as an afterthought, and my belief is that we have not
>> found yet how to integrate them full
On Thursday 16 August 2007 14:49:57 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > The real problem you mentioned may be that insets do not provide as
> > many display schemes as needed. New schemes would be useful for
> > other purposes as well, e.g. for charstyles; however that's not a
> > reason for putting ch
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
It is always a bit more complicated that that. For example, a word
ending with numbers will be checked without the trailing numbers.
Ok, I see. This wouldn't be a "true" word however (I mean in carbon-14,
only "carbon" is a word).
I don't think I a
Le 16 août 07 à 17:48, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Why InsetCitation?
Because external citation is that's the only use case I can think
of. Saying to the user use the NoSpellCheck inset for citations
looks weird to me. Of course internally it can be called
I
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Why InsetCitation?
Because external citation is that's the only use case I can think of.
Saying to the user use the NoSpellCheck inset for citations looks weird
to me. Of course internally it can be called InsetNoSpellChecker.
Anyway, the first priority would
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you sure of that? It seems to me that Word and OpenOffice adds
> "ignored words" into a list and not to the word font definitions or
> character attributes itself.
I was actually thinking about setting an area of text as "do not
spellcheck". Li
Le 16 août 07 à 17:11, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
an inset is designed for functional purp
Le 16 août 07 à 16:49, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Why "senseless"? Because semantically speaking, spellcheck deals with
words, not characters.
It is always a bit more complicated that that. For example, a word
ending with numbers will be checked without the trailing numbers.
Ok, I see. T
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "senseless" the method used b
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps it is used by other word processors... But isn't LyX supposed
> to be better?! :)
Yes of course.
> Why "senseless"? Because semantically speaking, spellcheck deals with
> words, not characters.
It is always a bit more complicated that that. F
Le 16 août 07 à 15:49, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "se
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
> spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
> an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "senseless" the method used by all other word processor
Le 16 août 07 à 14:36, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Of course, but as it is a presentation issue, it can be fixed later.
I would rather advocate to use character properties in current code
and switch to insets-as-character-properties later. Any te
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, but as it is a presentation issue, it can be fixed later.
I would rather advocate to use character properties in current code
and switch to insets-as-character-properties later. Any text longer
than one of two words put in such an inset will
Le 16 août 07 à 12:03, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 15 août 07 à 16:07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, by "frame" I meant something that would integrate seamlessly
into paragraphs (the 3-box-drawing approach that Andre advo
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 15 août 07 à 16:07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, by "frame" I meant something that would integrate seamlessly
into paragraphs (the 3-box-drawing approach that Andre advocates
would be very well suited for that).
This
Le 15 août 07 à 16:07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, by "frame" I meant something that would integrate seamlessly
into paragraphs (the 3-box-drawing approach that Andre advocates
would be very well suited for that).
This is probably outside of
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:33:16AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 15 août 07 à 00:32, Andre Poenitz a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
[..] The problem is, this is not working --- even now with
branches, as I ju
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > > > What about my old document that I created without this option? >
> > > Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _all_ notes should not be checked? Maybe I w
Le 15 août 07 à 16:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
But, except for that, I like your proposal a lot. I think it's
easier to implement than all the other proposal and it doesn't
touch the core (provided you don't store the info in the document
of course). At the end, spell-checking is a fro
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, by "frame" I meant something that would integrate seamlessly
> into paragraphs (the 3-box-drawing approach that Andre advocates
> would be very well suited for that).
This is probably outside of 1.6 program, though.
JMarc
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 15 août 07 à 10:02, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > What about my old document that I created without this option?
> > Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _
Le 15 août 07 à 12:05, Helge Hafting a écrit :
A type-level approach would be as much simple (at least): just use
what is already implemented: insets and layouts. The
Inset::allowSpellcheck() method is already there, and what I
propose is just to use it. If you have one note inset now, you
Le 15 août 07 à 10:02, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > What about my old document that I created without this
option? > > Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _all_ notes should not
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 16:22, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting saying
"don't spellcheck notes".
Ah! I think we're dealing with
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:33:16AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> >Le 15 août 07 à 00:32, Andre Poenitz a écrit :
> >
> >>On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> >>>[..] The problem is, this is not working --- even now with
> >>>branches, as I just fo
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > What about my old document that I created without this option? >
> Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _all_ notes should not be checked? Maybe I wan't
a few of them to actually be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > What about my old document that I created without this option? >
> Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _all_ notes should not be checked? Maybe I wan't a
few of them to actually be checked. Or sometimes I w
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > What about my old document that I created without this option?
> > Should I "remake" all notes?
How do you know that _all_ notes should not be checked? Maybe I wan't a
few of them to actually be checked. Or sometimes I want them all to be
checke
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Mael Hilléreau wrote:
>
> >> So inset-type would be a nice higher level, because it will allow me to
> >> easily do what I usually want; but we still need to account for
> >> exceptions, which inset-type can't do. (Don't say "we c
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 15 août 07 à 00:32, Andre Poenitz a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
[..]
The problem is, this is not working --- even now with branches, as I
just found out thanks to your question --- in certain cases which
involve Bidi text (and
Le 15 août 07 à 00:32, Andre Poenitz a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
[..]
The problem is, this is not working --- even now with branches, as I
just found out thanks to your question --- in certain cases which
involve Bidi text (and maybe other kinds of t
Le 14 août 07 à 23:16, Dov Feldstern a écrit :
Certainly. All along I've said that I like your patches, and we
*will* need some sort of higher level in order to make this *easy*
to use. But once the basis is in, I think this should be possible,
and not much more complicated than your origin
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:16:47AM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> [..]
> The problem is, this is not working --- even now with branches, as I
> just found out thanks to your question --- in certain cases which
> involve Bidi text (and maybe other kinds of transitions). In other
> words, in these
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
So inset-type would be a nice higher level, because it will allow me
to easily do what I usually want; but we still need to account for
exceptions, which inset-type can't do. (Don't say "we can have a
special 'ignore spelling' inset": I think it will be hard to correctly
Le 14 août 07 à 19:42, Dov Feldstern a écrit :
Ah! I think we're dealing with some kind of type-level here...
Nothing wrong with that - but the document structure
and screen redrawing should be kept as simple as possible.
A type-level approach would be as much simple (at least): just use
wha
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 16:22, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting saying
"don't spellcheck notes".
Ah! I think we're dealing with
Le 14 août 07 à 17:08, Mael Hilléreau a écrit :
Le 14 août 07 à 16:22, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting saying
"don't spellcheck notes".
Ah!
Le 14 août 07 à 16:22, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting saying
"don't spellcheck notes".
Ah! I think we're dealing with some kind of type-level
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting saying
"don't spellcheck notes".
Ah! I think we're dealing with some kind of type-level here...
Nothing wrong with that - but the d
Le 14 août 07 à 14:01, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Now, "don't spellcheck notes" is still doable by having a LFUN or
something that simply applies "character level no-spellcheck" over
all existing notes.
What happens if you add a new note?
For that, you will indeed need a document setting sayin
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 14 août 07 à 11:05, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 22:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Then you won't fix bug 1509. As a LyX user, ignoring spellchecking
into notes or comments is the most needed feature for me.
One does not rule
Le 14 août 07 à 11:05, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 22:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Some users use comments, notes to put quick reminders which
shouldn't
be spellchecked at all. Other users will e.g. use not
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 22:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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 spellchecke
Dov Feldstern wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
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.
I agree.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Ah.. this reminds me of something I said here at the meeting, but should of
course have posted as well.
A noun in e.g. English may contain spaces.
Select a compound word, and click the button. Very easy, no? (provided
that this is supported at the
Le 14 août 07 à 00:42, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What _we_ need isn't necessarily what _you_ think, right?
I can already tell you what I need (and I'm not the only one, see
bug
): a way to ignore notes in all my documents. What you propose i
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What _we_ need isn't necessarily what _you_ think, right?
>
> I can already tell you what I need (and I'm not the only one, see bug
> ): a way to ignore notes in all my documents. What you propose is
> just to configure each of them to be ignored! Not
Le 13 août 07 à 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
3) A list of words into document settings (with add/remove
control), and
a button into spellchecker dialog for adding on-the-fly.
Ah.. this reminds me of something I said here at the meeting, b
Le 14 août 07 à 00:08, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then you won't fix bug 1509. As a LyX user, ignoring spellchecking
into notes or comments is the most needed feature for me.
It is a good habit to write correct language in notes :)
Not good fo
Le 14 août 07 à 00:07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No. A per-character approach doesn't allow this. With per-character,
you'll provide instance level, not type level ignoring. For example,
you can use a tool (provided it is implemented) to ignore a
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then you won't fix bug 1509. As a LyX user, ignoring spellchecking
> into notes or comments is the most needed feature for me.
It is a good habit to write correct language in notes :)
JMarc
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. A per-character approach doesn't allow this. With per-character,
> you'll provide instance level, not type level ignoring. For example,
> you can use a tool (provided it is implemented) to ignore all notes
> instances in your document, but what happ
Le 13 août 07 à 22:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
Le 13 août 07 à 22:40, Dov Feldstern a écrit :
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
Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Me too. BTW, JMarc, if you want a two-digit bug, this is #86 ;)
I have a fix for bug 19, it is even better :)
> Or per-character (as language or font-attributes), which although
> unnecessary for spell-checking purposes, I think would be simpler in
> t
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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 add
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
I do
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 01:03, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Dov Feldstern
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. A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
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.
I agree.
Another solution I ju
Le 13 août 07 à 01:03, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Dov Feldstern <[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 i
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Dov Feldstern :
etc., etc. It becomes too ad-hoc, the code gets more and
more complicated in order to deal with ever-more specific cases, and we
are still not as flexible as possible.
Precisely, that's why what you propose (lower level) won't make things easier;
yo
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
3) A list of words into document settings (with add/remove control), and
a button into spellchecker dialog for adding on-the-fly.
Ah.. this reminds me of something I said here at the meeting, but should
of course have posted as well.
A n
Le 13 août 07 à 01:12, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I uploaded this patch to bugzilla:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1509
IMHO it fixes this bug. Please let me know wether it has a chance to
be applied.
FWIW, I looked at the patch a
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 13 août 07 à 13:01,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > I didn't understand him that way. I thought he meant that the specific
> > instanc of that word (and perhaps optionally all identical words) would
> >
Le 13 août 07 à 09:42, Helge Hafting a écrit :
Agreed. I have a simple solution: use 2 checkboxes. One for notes,
the other for
disabled branches.
This solves the spellchecking of branches. But note that such
checkboxes
does not remove the need for marking parts of the document as
non-sp
Le 13 août 07 à 13:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
I didn't understand him that way. I thought he meant that the
specific
instanc of that word (and perhaps optionally all identical words)
would be
marked as "do not spellcheck me". So there would be
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
I didn't understand him that way. I thought he meant that the specific
instanc of that word (and perhaps optionally all identical words) would be
marked as "do not spellcheck me". So there would be no list of words,
rather some (more) words that are mar
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
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.
I agree.
Another solution I just made up would be to be
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/
I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything,
so I can print the answers later wit
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I uploaded this patch to bugzilla:
>
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1509
>
> IMHO it fixes this bug. Please let me know wether it has a chance to
> be applied.
FWIW, I looked at the patch and there are a few things I do not like
in there.
Dov Feldstern <[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 goin
Selon Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Agreed. I have a simple solution: use 2 checkboxes. One for notes, the
> other for
> > disabled branches.
>
> Sure it's simple enough, but then a third person wants comments (as
> opposed to notes) treated a third way,
Indeed. I thought that comments w
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Dov Feldstern :
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/
I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything,
so I can print the answers later without further checking & editing.
Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > If it's just _one_ instance that we want to ignore, then we can use a
> > charstyle
> > or a special inset having keyword "NoSpellcheck" (this is already possible
> > with
> > the patch).
>
> Please, read "
> Did you see my patch from last week, which starts solving these problems
> in listings? Let's continue this issue in that thread...
> (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/91323)
I saw that. But I did not comment because I am not familiar with
language handling.
Bo
Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If it's just _one_ instance that we want to ignore, then we can use a
> charstyle
> or a special inset having keyword "NoSpellcheck" (this is already possible
> with
> the patch).
Please, read "layout", not "special inset". I was mistaken...
Mael.
Selon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> I like Helge's idea of having an easy way to mark a word/phrase as "do not
> >> spellcheck e"... Maybe the word is a real word in some contexts, but not
> >> in others, so I might not wan't it to be added to my personal dictionary.
> >
> > After all, why not... But i
Selon Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> > Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/
> >> I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything,
> >> so I can print the answers later without further check
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
I like Helge's idea of having an easy way to mark a word/phrase as "do not
spellcheck e"... Maybe the word is a real word in some contexts, but not
in others, so I might not wan't it to be added to my personal dictionary.
After all, why not... But if
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Selon Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
IMHO it fixes this bug. Please let me know wether it has a chance to be
applied.
Sorry that I did not follow this thread closely. Does this related to
the caption in listings bug? If this sol
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/
I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything,
so I can print the answers later without further checking & editing.
That's why there's a checkbox in the preferenc
Selon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> The spellcheck dialog could have another button for "don't spellcheck
> >> this word again". (Surely with a shorter caption, but you get the
> >> idea.)
> >>
> >> That button would mark the word as not spellchecked, and the next time
> >> the spellchecker runs those
Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Selon Dov Feldstern :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, in fact it wasn't the case with LyX-Code. I updated the patch so
that
LyX-Code paragraphs are no more spellchecked (see attache
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
The spellcheck dialog could have another button for "don't spellcheck
this word again". (Surely with a shorter caption, but you get the
idea.)
That button would mark the word as not spellchecked, and the next time
the spellchecker runs those words
Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/
> I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything,
> so I can print the answers later without further checking & editing.
That's why there's a checkbox in the preference pane :) (see the p
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:24:03AM +0200, Mael Hilléreau wrote:
> Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > ... On the other hand, there could be a much more simple solution:
> >
> > 1. Disable spellcheck for any code-inset (LyX code, listings...) -- perhaps
> > it's already the case;
>
> I
Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Selon Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > IMHO it fixes this bug. Please let me know wether it has a chance to be
> > applied.
> >
> >
> > Sorry that I did not follow this thread closely. Does this related to
> > the caption in listings bug? If this sol
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
