From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Grammar checking Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 10:14:17 +0300 Message-ID: <83tty0ysza.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87355lqs4v.fsf@gmail.com> <838rfd2mmf.fsf@gnu.org> <58158ae4984ea8345733@heytings.org> <83zg7t12i6.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt3t9ey3.fsf@localhost> <83tty10ytx.fsf@gnu.org> <875yaggklw.fsf@localhost> <83v8igytmc.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg7sf57l.fsf@localhost> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20488"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gregory@heytings.org, relekarpayas@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, m.eliachevitch@posteo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 01 09:14:26 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1piVRS-00058D-3o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 09:14:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piVRD-0000dm-Ji; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:14:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piVRB-0000dZ-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:14:09 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piVRB-0002j5-EJ; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:14:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=DH69yXfdyjpKLal8u7lcrHM68P9qa+4w/rHF8kfn56M=; b=SDOa5evzLlkm XOW3/sYtmjxOyYt7uWlVsNrvDmMDkwc2jPk/AtstdPmC/M4D1tQ30ouRP7wqYWSiw4tCnphIKlVx8 97FCaa71avfdOMz5uBudvWicDw1RP6sJ2d/HpneDRnEGYLJXQzzFyoW7nzeQTk7d0K8aCfPQpod1B 414Ovpy9XPXOqEReSodeotJKIX33hg5rWeYOZnU0QKVDR4N1bQLin9VUlgHaKH+1WoeX2jII8OhH0 K0TdlbOVHt1amtmOZ6qNp37nk4FQCmkexO90C8aOfaQTJYGWMbZx9eIWfTjj+EwIlW8mfTFvqbGfa ujH89pesRDbkp4Lm8lGYIA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piVR5-0004ga-11; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:14:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zg7sf57l.fsf@localhost> (message from Ihor Radchenko on Sat, 01 Apr 2023 07:10:22 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:304973 Archived-At: > From: Ihor Radchenko > Cc: gregory@heytings.org, relekarpayas@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, > m.eliachevitch@posteo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 07:10:22 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Agree. I can also see several related bug reports in their repo. > >> The question is though whether "not bad" is good enough and who is to > >> decide what is good enough for Emacs. > > > > We get to decide that. Who else? > > I was hoping to hear the criteria you have about good enough grammar > checking. I gave my opinion. I'm not the only one whose opinion matters, but I have no control on what others say or don't say. So I'm not sure what else do you want to hear from me. > >> I'd be happy if Emacs had a good integrated grammar checking support. Is > >> there anything else I can help to move this thread forward? > > > > Provide a Lisp package to integrate LanguageTool into Emacs in a > > convenient way? > > What is "convenient"? Is there particular must-have functionality? > Should it be ispell integration? flyspell? Both, IMO. > Probably not the latter as it is word-based. Indeed, it should check larger chunks of text, like sentences or paragraphs. > Though ispell.el also appears to rely on word-based paradigm in the > code. That's because this is how the spell-checkers work, I believe.