bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Andreas Röhler]

When ispell process ends, user might want to jump to last position
where checking was done.

See

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17510249/emacs-ispell-goto-previous-word

Don't see it's possible for now.

Implementation would be trivial.

In ispell.el

defun ispell-process-line

line 3572
(goto-char word-start)

knows position of last ispell.

Store it in a suitable defvared variable, so it's accessible
when ispell ends.

Afterwards a command ispell-goto-last-position might jump there.

Thanks,

Andreas

GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.10) of 2013-07-06

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

> When ispell process ends, user might want to jump to last position
> where checking was done.

I've now fixed this in Emacs 29 -- but instead of adding a special
command/user option, I just made it push the location of the final word
to the mark ring, so that `C-x C-x' can skip back to it.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: 14816@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:24:44 +0200
> 
> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:
> 
> > When ispell process ends, user might want to jump to last position
> > where checking was done.
> 
> I've now fixed this in Emacs 29 -- but instead of adding a special
> command/user option, I just made it push the location of the final word
> to the mark ring, so that `C-x C-x' can skip back to it.

This changeset changes the form of the return value of
ispell-process-line, so shouldn't that at least appear in
incompatible changes in NEWS (if not done in some more compatible
way)?

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> This changeset changes the form of the return value of
> ispell-process-line, so shouldn't that at least appear in
> incompatible changes in NEWS (if not done in some more compatible
> way)?

It seemed unlikely to me that third party packages would be using
ispell-process-line, so I didn't think either was necessary.  If it
turns out that it is, I was thinking of adding a new optional argument
to the function to alter the return value.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de,  14816@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 13:46:55 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > This changeset changes the form of the return value of
> > ispell-process-line, so shouldn't that at least appear in
> > incompatible changes in NEWS (if not done in some more compatible
> > way)?
> 
> It seemed unlikely to me that third party packages would be using
> ispell-process-line, so I didn't think either was necessary.  If it
> turns out that it is, I was thinking of adding a new optional argument
> to the function to alter the return value.

Yes, I'm asking why not do that now, proactively?

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> It seemed unlikely to me that third party packages would be using
>> ispell-process-line, so I didn't think either was necessary.  If it
>> turns out that it is, I was thinking of adding a new optional argument
>> to the function to alter the return value.
>
> Yes, I'm asking why not do that now, proactively?

Having an optional parameter to a function that has one single usage
didn't seem warranted.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#14816: 24.3.50.1; ispell remember position, feature request

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de,  14816@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 02:07:07 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> It seemed unlikely to me that third party packages would be using
> >> ispell-process-line, so I didn't think either was necessary.  If it
> >> turns out that it is, I was thinking of adding a new optional argument
> >> to the function to alter the return value.
> >
> > Yes, I'm asking why not do that now, proactively?
> 
> Having an optional parameter to a function that has one single usage
> didn't seem warranted.

It's a public API that could be used out there any number of times.
And the compatible change is very simple.  Sounds like a no-brainer to
me.