ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Jürgen Hartmann]

If a suspicious word is accepted once by pressing <SPC> in an interactive
ispell-buffer session, all further occurrences of the same word on the same
line are skipped.

Here is an example:

Open an Emacs 24.5 session (it is the same with Emacs 24.4) by

   LC_ALL=C emacs -Q

and enter the following line in the *scratch* buffer:

   The term charset is short for charset.

Assume that the last word is a typo that should read "character set". Now
change the dictionary to american and run ispell-buffer. The first occurrence
of "charset" gets highlighted, but since it is correct here, we use <SPC> to
accept it once an proceed. But oops... the spell-check finishes immediately
without giving us the chance to correct the second occurrence of "charset" in
that line.

Is this a bug or a difficult to understand feature.
(I don't think that I like it.)

Does anyone has an idea how to bring ispell-buffer to offer all suspicious
words for correction?

Thank you for any advice.

Juergen

 		 	   		  

Re: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jürgen Hartmann <juergen_hartmann_@hotmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:14:21 +0200
> 
> If a suspicious word is accepted once by pressing <SPC> in an interactive
> ispell-buffer session, all further occurrences of the same word on the same
> line are skipped.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> Open an Emacs 24.5 session (it is the same with Emacs 24.4) by
> 
>    LC_ALL=C emacs -Q
> 
> and enter the following line in the *scratch* buffer:
> 
>    The term charset is short for charset.
> 
> Assume that the last word is a typo that should read "character set". Now
> change the dictionary to american and run ispell-buffer. The first occurrence
> of "charset" gets highlighted, but since it is correct here, we use <SPC> to
> accept it once an proceed. But oops... the spell-check finishes immediately
> without giving us the chance to correct the second occurrence of "charset" in
> that line.
> 
> Is this a bug or a difficult to understand feature.

Looks like a deliberate "feature": the comment there explicitly says:

              ;; Do not recheck accepted word on this line.

Can't say I understand why, so feel free to file a bug report.

Re: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Francis Belliveau]

This is clearly an intended feature.  I am personally annoyed by the inability to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular document.  I do not want such things added to my dictionary because they are likely not valid for other documents.

That said I can understand how this would not be liked by all.  If a bug report is filed, I would hope that it is solved by configuration choice, rather than just forcing everybody to accept it the other way.

That’s my opinion and I am sticking with it:-)

> On May 7, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: Jürgen Hartmann <juergen_hartmann_@hotmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:14:21 +0200
>> 
>> If a suspicious word is accepted once by pressing <SPC> in an interactive
>> ispell-buffer session, all further occurrences of the same word on the same
>> line are skipped.
>> 
>> Here is an example:
>> 
>> Open an Emacs 24.5 session (it is the same with Emacs 24.4) by
>> 
>>    LC_ALL=C emacs -Q
>> 
>> and enter the following line in the *scratch* buffer:
>> 
>>    The term charset is short for charset.
>> 
>> Assume that the last word is a typo that should read "character set". Now
>> change the dictionary to american and run ispell-buffer. The first occurrence
>> of "charset" gets highlighted, but since it is correct here, we use <SPC> to
>> accept it once an proceed. But oops... the spell-check finishes immediately
>> without giving us the chance to correct the second occurrence of "charset" in
>> that line.
>> 
>> Is this a bug or a difficult to understand feature.
> 
> Looks like a deliberate "feature": the comment there explicitly says:
> 
>              ;; Do not recheck accepted word on this line.
> 
> Can't say I understand why, so feel free to file a bug report.
> 
> 

Re: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:01:06 -0400
> 
> This is clearly an intended feature.  I am personally annoyed by the inability to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular document.  

This "feature" doesn't do what you want: if the same word happens on
another line, it will be flagged again.  Only words on the same line
are exempt.

> I do not want such things added to my dictionary because they are likely not valid for other documents.

Then why don't you use the 'a' command?  It does exactly what you
want: you won't be asked again about the same word in this "spelling
session", and won't add the word to your personal dictionary.

> That’s my opinion and I am sticking with it:-)

Even after I explained the above?

RE: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Jürgen Hartmann]

Thank you, Eli Zaretskii, for the clarification:

>> From: Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:01:06 -0400
>>
>> This is clearly an intended feature. I am personally annoyed by the
>> inability to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular
>> document.
>
> This "feature" doesn't do what you want: if the same word happens on
> another line, it will be flagged again.  Only words on the same line
> are exempt.

@ Eli Zaretskii, you got exactly my point. It is not about local dictionaries
or document specific spelling--this is a different issue--but about the fact
that <SPC> accepts a spelling for the whole line instead of accepting it for
one particular instance only.

Juergen

 		 	   		  

Re: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Francis Belliveau]

Ok Juergen, I see the difference.  It is a nuance that I missed since I have never used ispell.

However, I still stand on the fact that if the original programmer thought this a useful feature, then it should remain available.
I acknowledge that you think that it is a bad feature, therefore and option should be available for users to choose which action they feel appropriate/

I know that in general these types of options can get very prolific.  However, with proper choice of default behavior, few will have the need to deal with them.  Also, with proper documentation of options, those that do’t like a behavior can get what they want also.

Fran


> On May 10, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Jürgen Hartmann <juergen_hartmann_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Eli Zaretskii, for the clarification:
> 
>>> From: Francis Belliveau <f.belliveau@comcast.net>
>>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:01:06 -0400
>>> 
>>> This is clearly an intended feature. I am personally annoyed by the
>>> inability to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular
>>> document.
>> 
>> This "feature" doesn't do what you want: if the same word happens on
>> another line, it will be flagged again.  Only words on the same line
>> are exempt.
> 
> @ Eli Zaretskii, you got exactly my point. It is not about local dictionaries
> or document specific spelling--this is a different issue--but about the fact
> that <SPC> accepts a spelling for the whole line instead of accepting it for
> one particular instance only.
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 		 	   		  

RE: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Jürgen Hartmann]

Francis Belliveau wrote:

> Ok Juergen, I see the difference. It is a nuance that I missed since I have
> never used ispell.
>
> However, I still stand on the fact that if the original programmer thought
> this a useful feature, then it should remain available. I acknowledge that
> you think that it is a bad feature, therefore and option should be available
> for users to choose which action they feel appropriate/
>
> I know that in general these types of options can get very prolific. However,
> with proper choice of default behavior, few will have the need to deal with
> them. Also, with proper documentation of options, those that do’t like a
> behavior can get what they want also.

I totally agree with you: If this is an advantageous feature or--to state it
more cautious--a property that others may rely on, it should never be
dropped, of course.

The question is now, whether we face something that is worthy of preservation
here. That's why I formulated the bug report more like "there is something we
don't understand" instead of "please remove that mistake". See

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2015-05/msg00326.html

Juergen

 		 	   		  

RE: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Jürgen Hartmann]

Francis Belliveau, thank you for your answer:

> This is clearly an intended feature. I am personally annoyed by the inability
> to indicate something suspicious is valid for a particular document. I do not
> want such things added to my dictionary because they are likely not valid for
> other documents.

I understand what you mean, but this is a different point: My concern addresses
the behavior of ispell-buffer to apply the acceptance of a suspicious
spelling by <SPC> not only on that particular instance but on all instances
of that spelling on the respective line.

Juergen

 		 	   		  

RE: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted

[Jürgen Hartmann]

[RE: ispell-buffer skips repetitive suspects after the first is accepted]
Thank you, Eli Zaretskii, for your assessment:

> Looks like a deliberate "feature": the comment there explicitly says:
>
>               ;; Do not recheck accepted word on this line.

Oh, that is a good hint, I didn't see that.

> Can't say I understand why, so feel free to file a bug report.

I think I will do this, so we might learn at least why it is good the way it
is.

Thank you.

Juergen