Re: flypell and check-comments.

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 >>since on the one hand you don't check for `ispell-check-comments' being
 >>eq to 'exclusive
 >
 >
 > I don't think it matters. At least, if it has to be fixed, it's not
 > here, but maybe in `flyspell-generic-progmode-verify'. Well, I don't
 > really know.

As far as I understand this, `ispell-check-comments' t means check
comments too, 'exclusive means check comments only, somehow inverting
the sense of nil.  When using faces, nil means don't check when the face
is font-lock-comment-face, 'exclusive means check iff the face is
font-lock-comment-face, t means faces don't matter.  When using
parse-state it's equally simple: nil means don't check for (nth 4
parse-state), exclusive means check iff (nth 4 parse-state), and t means
parse-state doesn't matter.  Trivial.

 >>while on the other hand you don't check whether you're in a string
 >>(hence you don't fully emulate the default of
 >>`flyspell-prog-text-faces' either).
 >
 >
 > I don't understand, why should I check that I'm in a string?

Because the default value of `flyspell-prog-text-faces' has
`font-lock-string-face', `font-lock-comment-face' and
`font-lock-doc-face'.  To emulate this you would have to spell-check iff
either (nth 3 parse-state) or (nth 4 parse-state) hold.  If a user
wanted to spell-check doc-strings only this wouldn't work though.

 >>Also `syntax-ppss' may get expensive for `flyspell-large-region'.  It's
 >>generally better to use it for the first position only, save position
 >>and parse-state, and then do `parse-partial-sexp' from the last saved
 >>position and parse-state.
 >
 >
 > I probably agree :) However, I don't really see how this can be
 > implemented. If ispell has to be mimicked, maybe the test should be
 > made using comment-start -- comment-end, but not sure.

It would have to be done in `flyspell-external-point-words' before
`flyspell-word' is called.  Never mind.  If there are few spelling
errors `syntax-ppss' might be even faster.

 >>Hence, IMHO ignoring `ispell-check-comments' here is a viable
 >>alternative as well.
 >
 >
 > Well, this is not just for the fun to make a patch, I really want to
 > use `ispell-check-comments' (to nil).

In that case you should probably implement the 'exclusive option as
well.  Otherwise you should insert a note about this.