Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> I use Aspell with the British dictionary. I have the
> same problem. For normal communications it has
> enough words for me, but for anything technical I
> get many spurious spelling errors.

For computer lingo it is surprising there isn't more
of that in the "insane" version because one would
imagine lots of computer people use it. There are
probably some material around that could be merged
with it.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Robert Thorpe writes:
> > I use Aspell with the British dictionary. I have the
> > same problem. For normal communications it has
> > enough words for me, but for anything technical I
> > get many spurious spelling errors.
> 
> For computer lingo it is surprising there isn't more
> of that in the "insane" version because one would
> imagine lots of computer people use it. There are
> probably some material around that could be merged
> with it.

For computer related email I just live with the false positives on all
of the non-english computer terms.  If I were to insert all of the
terms into my dictionary then most of those would come back later and
be false negatives when they really were spelling errors.  So I just
live with it.

Normally I don't use any spell checker at all.  And sometimes that
bites me because I have been making more spelling errors of late.
When I do run the spell I run ispell-region over my response (and not
over the quoted material) and then quickly space through the false
positives.  For me that works best.

Bob

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> Normally I don't use any spell checker at all. And
> sometimes that bites me because I have been making
> more spelling errors of late. When I do run the
> spell I run ispell-region over my response (and not
> over the quoted material) and then quickly space
> through the false positives. For me that works best.

Native speakers perhaps generally do less mistakes
(...or?). My general attitude is I, and everyone else,
should learn how to spell and type. But I also know
mistakes happen just the same and I don't want to send
posts with that kind of mistakes if that can be
avoided, that would be disrespectful. So it is a
conflict there which ispell won. I wonder though if
ispell "conserves" mistakes and typos that you
habitually do, because you subconsciously
(...correctly spelled?) - you are too relaxed because
you know ispell is there to help you. If so, still, I
think ispell does this less than flyspell because then
you are in the middle of typing so you want minimal
time spent thinking about what word went wrong and
why, so perhaps you can type it correct the next time
it comes up. In general I'm happy with ispell, I only
think the dictionary should be much wider in scope.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> In general I'm happy with ispell, I only think the dictionary should
> be much wider in scope.

There is always the personal dictionary.  When spell checking using
ispell-region for example one can always use 'i' to insert the word
into the personal dictionary.  If you are using computer terms and you
don't want them flagged then insert the word into the personal
dictionary.  It shouldn't take too long before it has been populated
with the terms you use often.

I haven't done that myself.  The problem for me is that after a while
that dictionary would contain so many words such as ispell which would
then no longer flag normal use of "spell" which were misspelled that
way.  I would rather keep human english communication separate from
technical jargon.  Perhaps two different dictionaries.  But having
only one means I want to be cautious.

But by all means if you like insert all of the technical jargon into
your personal dictionary.  You could even share that around with
others.  It could become a standard jargon dictionary that could be
promoted up to a system dictionary for standard inclusion.  I mean
what is the worst that can happen?  Usually when people say that the
worst that could happen is actually pretty bad but in this case it
would just be a spelling error and we all make those mistakes all of
the time anyway so not ultimately bad.

Bob

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

> There is always the personal dictionary. When spell
> checking using ispell-region for example one can
> always use 'i' to insert the word into the personal
> dictionary. If you are using computer terms and you
> don't want them flagged then insert the word into
> the personal dictionary. It shouldn't take too long
> before it has been populated with the terms you use
> often.

Yes, I have personal dictionaries (or word lists) that
get populated by and by. I like that idea but many
words should be there already. It is precisely the big
number of words I add every time I spell a text of
some length that convinces me I cannot use a flyspell
solution with my current dictionary, as it would
report too many errors right or wrong as I would type.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg]

torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:

> I find that trying to have both flyspell and
> autocorrect-ispell working in the same buffer
> results in unusably slow autocorrect behavior; if I
> start a word, it takes up to 5 second for a
> suggestion to appear. I am using the hunspell
> dictionary for both. Upon disabling flyspell,
> ac-ispell works fine. Anyone have these two working
> in tandem? How did you do it?

No, but on-the-fly spellcheck is a dubious idea to
begin with, at least with the dictionaries I've seen.
I have the iamerican-insane for ispell but it seems
"insane" is meant literally because that's what you
get if you would use it on-the-fly as there are so
many words, acronyms, "fun" spellings, etc. missing.
It is very annoying to have your flow of
typing/thoughts stop and reset all the time,
especially if the word that did it isn't even
incorrectly spelled or actually that unusual at all!
But even for sensible catches it is much better to
just type and think, type and think, and when done,
*then* spellcheck, once.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Tory S. Anderson]

> on-the-fly spellcheck is a dubious idea to begin with
You realize you are upsetting the entire industry standard of Word Processors out there, right? :) I have long agreed with you and used that one-check method for my LaTeX writing; but FlySpell generally "just works" and has proven very useful for things I forget to ispell, like emails and note pages (where later coming back to typos is more distracting to me than correcting them immediately). "Just works", that is, until you try to complement it's look-behind with the AC-ispell "look-ahead". 

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:
>
>> I find that trying to have both flyspell and
>> autocorrect-ispell working in the same buffer
>> results in unusably slow autocorrect behavior; if I
>> start a word, it takes up to 5 second for a
>> suggestion to appear. I am using the hunspell
>> dictionary for both. Upon disabling flyspell,
>> ac-ispell works fine. Anyone have these two working
>> in tandem? How did you do it?
>
> No, but on-the-fly spellcheck is a dubious idea to
> begin with, at least with the dictionaries I've seen.
> I have the iamerican-insane for ispell but it seems
> "insane" is meant literally because that's what you
> get if you would use it on-the-fly as there are so
> many words, acronyms, "fun" spellings, etc. missing.
> It is very annoying to have your flow of
> typing/thoughts stop and reset all the time,
> especially if the word that did it isn't even
> incorrectly spelled or actually that unusual at all!
> But even for sensible catches it is much better to
> just type and think, type and think, and when done,
> *then* spellcheck, once.

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg]

torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:

>> on-the-fly spellcheck is a dubious idea to begin
>> with
> You realize you are upsetting the entire industry
> standard of Word Processors out there, right? :) I
> have long agreed with you and used that one-check
> method for my LaTeX writing; but FlySpell generally
> "just works" and has proven very useful for things I
> forget to ispell, like emails and note pages (where
> later coming back to typos is more distracting to me
> than correcting them immediately)

How is spelling mails different from spelling LaTeX
source? I spellcheck mails as well, with
`ispell-message'.

Actually I didn't try flyspell because I assumed -
correctly? - that it uses the same dictionary as my
ispell stuff. If so, I have the biggest (?) dictionary
in the Debian repositories, which is
'iamerican-insane'. The "insane" part refers to its
size. But actually it is quite sane, to the point of
finding numerous "errors" all but every time I
spellcheck, errors which aren't errors but simply
words missing in the dictionary. I'm fine adding those
in one bulk, once per write occasion, but not all the
time and on the fly as I type and am thinking about
what to say and how (and why I am right :)). This is
otherwise a very enjoyable thing which flyspell would
disrupt completely, less the dictionary was truly
"insane" and could be used without a noticable
overhead.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Robert Thorpe]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> ispell stuff. If so, I have the biggest (?) dictionary
> in the Debian repositories, which is
> 'iamerican-insane'. The "insane" part refers to its
> size. But actually it is quite sane, to the point of
> finding numerous "errors" all but every time I
> spellcheck, errors which aren't errors but simply
> words missing in the dictionary.

I use Aspell with the British dictionary.  I have the same problem.  For
normal communications it has enough words for me, but for anything
technical I get many spurious spelling errors.

In some ways using a personal dictionary doesn't help because
terminology in one message may be typos in another.  I've been too lazy
to find a way to solve this problem so far, but it's on my list.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Dan Espen]

torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:

> I find that trying to have both flyspell and autocorrect-ispell
> working in the same buffer results in unusably slow autocorrect
> behavior; if I start a word, it takes up to 5 second for a suggestion
> to appear. I am using the hunspell dictionary for both. Upon disabling
> flyspell, ac-ispell works fine. Anyone have these two working in
> tandem? How did you do it?
>
> Related: issue submitted on ac-ispell at https://github.com/syohex/emacs-ac-ispell/issues/8

I think the 2 packages are bound to conflict with each other.
Looking around, I found this:

http://superuser.com/questions/540942/is-it-possible-to-auto-correct-spelling-on-space-in-emacs

http://tinyurl.com/mfs6gxv


-- 
Dan Espen

Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Tory S. Anderson]

I find that trying to have both flyspell and autocorrect-ispell working in the same buffer results in unusably slow autocorrect behavior; if I start a word, it takes up to 5 second for a suggestion to appear. I am using the hunspell dictionary for both. Upon disabling flyspell, ac-ispell works fine. Anyone have these two working in tandem? How did you do it? 

Related: issue submitted on ac-ispell at https://github.com/syohex/emacs-ac-ispell/issues/8

Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Robert Thorpe]

torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:

> I find that trying to have both flyspell and autocorrect-ispell working in the same buffer results in unusably slow autocorrect behavior; if I start a word, it takes up to 5 second for a suggestion to appear. I am using the hunspell dictionary for both. Upon disabling flyspell, ac-ispell works fine. Anyone have these two working in tandem? How did you do it? 
>
> Related: issue submitted on ac-ispell at https://github.com/syohex/emacs-ac-ispell/issues/8

I find that flyspell by itself leads to unusably slow Emacs behaviour.
It may just be that autocorrect-ispell pushes even more commands to the
spelling process.

You could perhaps try using speck-mode, which is faster.  I don't do
that, I use M-$ and sometimes M-x ispell-buffer.  Xah Lee has
described these problems:
http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/emacs_spell_checker_problems.html

BR,
Robert Thorpe