bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

[Peter Oliver]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1172 bytes --]

The default value of ispell-program-name is decided by looking in turn for the binaries aspell, ispell, hunspell and enchant-2, and using whichever is first found.  Would it make sense to sort these in order of which we believe to be best?

As I understand it, which backend is most accurate varies from language to language.  Assuming the quality of the Emacs integration is equal, I would suggest putting Enchant first on the list rather than last.  Enchant doesnʼt do any spellchecking itself, but instead selects a backend based on a per-language configuration preference, automatically skipping any backends which are not installed or for which dictionaries are not installed in the current language.

I notice that the Red Hat/Fedora packages patch Emacs to put Hunspell first on the list (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs/blob/rawhide/f/emacs-spellchecker.patch).  The rationale for this was that if Aspell was installed but the Aspell dictionaries for a language were not, then ispell-buffer fails (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713600).  If, instead, Enchant was tried first, this kind of tinkering would not be necessary.

-- 
Peter Oliver

bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Peter Oliver <p.d.oliver@mavit.org.uk>
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:03:15 +0000 (GMT)
> 
> The default value of ispell-program-name is decided by looking in turn for the binaries aspell, ispell, hunspell and enchant-2, and using whichever is first found.  Would it make sense to sort these in order of which we believe to be best?

Not sure we need to change the order.  ispell-program-name is a
defcustom, which means users are invited to set it according to their
preferences.  We cannot pretend we know the preferences of each user.

> As I understand it, which backend is most accurate varies from language to language.  Assuming the quality of the Emacs integration is equal, I would suggest putting Enchant first on the list rather than last.  Enchant doesnʼt do any spellchecking itself, but instead selects a backend based on a per-language configuration preference, automatically skipping any backends which are not installed or for which dictionaries are not installed in the current language.

I have the impression that Enchant is still a new player on this
field, and keeps changing significantly.  Maybe it's good enough in
distros that use the latest versions, but what about people who have
older versions installed?

One more reason not to try to second guess what is best for the users,
I guess.

Does anyone else have an opinion?

bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I have the impression that Enchant is still a new player on this
> field, and keeps changing significantly.  Maybe it's good enough in
> distros that use the latest versions, but what about people who have
> older versions installed?
>
> One more reason not to try to second guess what is best for the users,
> I guess.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion?

Enchant does seem to be the more modern solution, so it might make sense
to have Emacs give it priority.  On the other hand, changing the
priority will mean that older users will suddenly start using Enchant
instead of ispell (or whatever), and changes like that are always
painful.

So I don't think it's worth it -- at this point, at least.  If, at some
point Enchant becomes the vastly preferred value, then we can
reevaluate, but my feeling is that that's not currently the case.  So
I'm closing this bug report.

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

bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > Enchant does seem to be the more modern solution, so it might make sense
  > to have Emacs give it priority.

It seems to be a front end for various spell checkers including Ispell.
Emacs already knows how to talk with them.
Does Enchant offer any features of its own?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

bug#46298: 28.0.50; Best default for ispell-program-name

[Peter Oliver]

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Richard Stallman wrote:

>  > Enchant does seem to be the more modern solution, so it might make sense
>  > to have Emacs give it priority.
>
> It seems to be a front end for various spell checkers including Ispell.
> Emacs already knows how to talk with them.
> Does Enchant offer any features of its own?

Emacs ispell.el supports only three spell checkers (plus Enchant), whereas Enchant knows how to talk to seven.  My understanding is that general-purpose spell checkers perform particularly badly with some languages, so it would be of particular benefit for languages for which Enchant supports a dedicated checker.

-- 
Peter Oliver