From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea99940253996e3e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ea99940253996e3e X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,ea99940253996e3e X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ea99940253996e3e X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-04 11:33:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!news2.e.nsc.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Sender: leifm@huldreheim.huldreskog.no Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Spell-checking source code (Was: ISO Studies of underscores...) References: <2cfd1a4e.0309252032.3e3c0a1a@posting.google.com> <863cefjy6l.fsf@strudel.futureapps.de> <86ad8i7d1d.fsf_-_@huldreheim.huldreskog.no> <86zngh5oct.fsf@huldreheim.huldreskog.no> From: Leif Roar Moldskred Message-ID: <86r81s6elg.fsf@huldreheim.huldreskog.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.212.67.67 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@telenor.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 20:33:29 MEST X-Trace: news2.ulv.nextra.no 1065292409 80.212.67.67 Date: 04 Oct 2003 20:29:47 +0200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.software-eng:53 comp.programming:354 comp.lang.c++:843 comp.lang.ada:227 Date: 2003-10-04T20:29:47+02:00 List-Id: "Jakob Bieling" writes: > But it is that kind of word-matching I would personally like to see in > more compilers (specifically C++ compilers). > > I do agree with Kevin Morenski (news:3f7df3af_2@nntp2.nac.net) that a > real spell-checker for source code is not practicable. You said that the > spell-checker would just have to ask you whether to ignore it or how else to > proceed. Have you thought about how annoying 100s or even 1000s of those > messages boxes, asking how to proceed, will be when compiling already > existing source with this spell-checker? Oh, I wouldn't want it to be part of the compiler, or continiously on. Rather, I'd just want to be able to run a command in my editor to spell-check the source-code I'm currently working on - much like I today invoke ispell in emacs for regular text files. -- Leif Roar Moldskred