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.bugs Subject: bug#44318: 28.0.50; Problem with ispell/flyspell and ""enchant"" backend Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 17:43:27 +0200 Message-ID: <838sbjepcw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83k0v8b1u3.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8ki96m6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0v6hhzg.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7q8e8ja.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25669"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dinkonin@gmail.com, 44318@debbugs.gnu.org To: Reuben Thomas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 02 16:47:13 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1kZc35-0006VL-KE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 16:47:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55954 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZc34-0003C3-Eu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:47:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZc02-0000NQ-LE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:44:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58901) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZc02-0002Y3-AL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:44:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kZc02-0003MO-8e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:44:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 15:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 44318 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 44318-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B44318.160433182512884 (code B ref 44318); Mon, 02 Nov 2020 15:44:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 44318) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Nov 2020 15:43:45 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42214 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kZbzl-0003Lk-D4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:43:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58428) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kZbzj-0003LX-OR for 44318@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:43:44 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kZbze-0002UR-FJ; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:43:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1611 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kZbzd-0001pD-9Q; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:43:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Reuben Thomas on Mon, 2 Nov 2020 08:35:13 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:192533 Archived-At: > From: Reuben Thomas > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 08:35:13 +0000 > Cc: dinkonin , 44318@debbugs.gnu.org > > I believe that the ispell.el code (which I wrote) is buggy: it should not be incorporating warnings into its > output. > > Also, the patch I offered is a simplification of the original code. So, I don't think we are losing here. > > Eli, I quite agree with your sentiment, and I would certainly not advocate installing a workaround in Emacs > unless there were compelling reasons. However, I do not see this as a workaround, and as it is also a > simplification, I don't see a problem. I have a problem with ignoring stderr because it can provide some useful information. Moreover, no one said that some client of Enchant, current or future, won't decide to produce non-error output on stderr. Sorry.