Re: jinx

[Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 23:11, Richard Stallman wrote:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > >   > ispell already supports enchant, but it communicates via IPC instead of
>   > >   > the library interface.
>   > >
>   > > Would it be possible for jinx to do this?
>   > > Would it be better overall for jinx to do this?
>
>   > Do what?
>
> Communicate with enchant via IPC.
>
> I understood the other person to be saying that communicating that way
> is an advantage for ispell.  If it is an advantage, could jinx be made
> to do it that way?
>
> Maybe perse did not mean that this was an advantage.

It is totally feasible to write a decent spell-checking package relying
just on IPC, but it would be very helpful (for this an many other
purposes) to optimize Emacs's subprocess communication routines, which
are clearly pretty slow.

In fact, jinx is a fork of my (also recent) jit-spell package, which
communicates with the spellchecker through pipes using the `ispell -a'
interface.  Jinx was created because its author experienced some latency
issues while using jit-spell.  I was unable to reproduce his
observations, although I do observe relatively high CPU usage while
typing with jit-spell mode on.