Re: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>]

Ok Juergen, I see the difference.  It is a nuance that I missed since I have never used ispell.

However, I still stand on the fact that if the original programmer thought this a useful feature, then it should remain available.
I acknowledge that you think that it is a bad feature, therefore and option should be available for users to choose which action they feel appropriate/

I know that in general these types of options can get very prolific.  However, with proper choice of default behavior, few will have the need to deal with them.  Also, with proper documentation of options, those that do’t like a behavior can get what they want also.

Fran


> On May 10, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Jürgen Hartmann <juergen_hartmann_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Eli Zaretskii, for the clarification:
> 
>>> From: Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
>>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:01:06 -0400
>>> 
>>> This is clearly an intended feature. I am personally annoyed by the
>>> inability to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular
>>> document.
>> 
>> This "feature" doesn't do what you want: if the same word happens on
>> another line, it will be flagged again.  Only words on the same line
>> are exempt.
> 
> @ Eli Zaretskii, you got exactly my point. It is not about local dictionaries
> or document specific spelling--this is a different issue--but about the fact
> that <SPC> accepts a spelling for the whole line instead of accepting it for
> one particular instance only.
> 
> Juergen
> 
>