Re: Anyone have flyspell + autocorrect working?

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

torys.anderson@gmail.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:

>> on-the-fly spellcheck is a dubious idea to begin
>> with
> You realize you are upsetting the entire industry
> standard of Word Processors out there, right? :) I
> have long agreed with you and used that one-check
> method for my LaTeX writing; but FlySpell generally
> "just works" and has proven very useful for things I
> forget to ispell, like emails and note pages (where
> later coming back to typos is more distracting to me
> than correcting them immediately)

How is spelling mails different from spelling LaTeX
source? I spellcheck mails as well, with
`ispell-message'.

Actually I didn't try flyspell because I assumed -
correctly? - that it uses the same dictionary as my
ispell stuff. If so, I have the biggest (?) dictionary
in the Debian repositories, which is
'iamerican-insane'. The "insane" part refers to its
size. But actually it is quite sane, to the point of
finding numerous "errors" all but every time I
spellcheck, errors which aren't errors but simply
words missing in the dictionary. I'm fine adding those
in one bulk, once per write occasion, but not all the
time and on the fly as I type and am thinking about
what to say and how (and why I am right :)). This is
otherwise a very enjoyable thing which flyspell would
disrupt completely, less the dictionary was truly
"insane" and could be used without a noticable
overhead.

-- 
underground experts united