From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changing dictionary while flyspell-buffer is running Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:10:19 +0200 Message-ID: <83lg28fgdg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874l8ztmgk.fsf@posteo.de> <838sy9hkgk.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1htsfpa.fsf@posteo.de> <83zhqpfb0t.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftsh3p42.fsf@fastmail.fm> <83mumogaza.fsf@gnu.org> <87ef80dekm.fsf@posteo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="247013"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: joostkremers@fastmail.fm, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Titus von der Malsburg Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 22 08:10:45 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gx4yq-00122d-Dp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:10:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45367 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gx4yp-0007EK-BM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:10:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38971) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gx4yj-0007E4-J6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:10:38 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gx4yc-0000Bs-QN; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:10:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3528 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gx4yR-0000pX-Jb; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:10:24 -0500 In-reply-to: <87ef80dekm.fsf@posteo.de> (message from Titus von der Malsburg on Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:19:53 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:233528 Archived-At: > From: Titus von der Malsburg > Cc: Joost Kremers , emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 22:19:53 +0100 > > > It needs at least 30 letters to guess right, which is quite a few. > > The number of letters depends on the configured languages, it could be > less than 30 when the scripts are different but for English, Dutch, > and German 30 works well in my experience and languages don’t get much > more similar than that (except if you want to distinguish between US > English and UK English). The minimum number also depends on the expected reliability of language detection, of course. > I just tried it and noticed one downside: Flyspell offers possible > corrections for unknown words and when multiple languages are > configured, these suggestions come from all configured dictionaries. Of course, but what would you expect? And how is that a downside? Hunspell doesn't try to guess the language at all, it just looks in all loaded dictionaries one by one. > Many of them are of course not relevant because they are not in the > language of the paragraph. There's no "language of the paragraph" in this method, you can freely mix words from different languages in the same paragraph. There are important use cases for that, like editing a message translation catalog or text that that explains in-line the meaning of words in another language. > Flyspell also has an autocorrection feature (which I’m not using) > and this feature would also largely stop being useful with multiple > dictionaries. It will only become less useful if the first correction is off in a significant number of cases. Which is not at all expected, certainly not when each language uses a different script. > I think that this makes the Hunspell solution less appealing. I think you are slightly biased ;-). As am I, most probably. Both solutions have their advantages and disadvantages, and the user should choose which one better suits his/her needs in each case. I mentioned Hunspell because I think few people even know about this feature, which is quite unique among spellers supported by Emacs.