Re: flypell and check-comments.

[martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>]

 > Stefan, Martin, is the code here what you meant (it may not be,
 > font-locking is not my cup of tea)?

Maybe the following should be reconsidered

 > ! 	      (and (not ispell-check-comments)
 > ! 		   (nth 4 (syntax-ppss (car (cdr flyspell-word))))))

since on the one hand you don't check for `ispell-check-comments' being
eq to 'exclusive (hence you don't emulate ispell faithfully - I don't
know whether this is even desirable) 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).  But maybe I'm wrong.

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.

By no means I want(ed) to express here that syntax _should_ be parsed.
What I meant was that if a user does not want to use font-lock _and_
wants to spell-check comments or strings specially, parsing syntax is
the only practical way.  Hence, IMHO ignoring `ispell-check-comments'
here is a viable alternative as well.