Re: correcting word groups (general spelling question)

[Emanuel Berg]

Yuri D'Elia <wavexx@thregr.org> writes:

> Again, these are words I never put in the
> dictionary, because they're just to easy to mistype.
> I'd rather have them marked as spelling errors to
> inspect them. However, they can very often be made
> unique using one or two words of context around
> them, which would avoid the continuous hassle of
> seeing 5-6% of the document marked with a spelling
> error. They would also be unique enough to be
> consistent between documents, which would save me
> even further time.

As for me, I'd just add them to the dictionary and
don't worry about them appearing in normal text, and
even if they were, I don't see a typo like that really
having a negative effect to speak of. But yes, it
might be a small annoyance now that you mention it.

> But I cannot stop thinking that I cannot be the only
> guy with this "problem", and the solution doesn't
> strike me as particularly complicated for the
> benefit that you have. I would have expected "word"
> or "libreoffice" to have something similar for the
> sake of the user, but it doesn't.

I think something to this extent should be added.
Perhaps you can report it as a bug (report it as
a suggestion which is the same thing) and see if the
ispell people like the idea. Maybe they can use
a separate file for such combinations, to be
preprocessed, if it would imply a performance penalty
to have it in the normal wordlist.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573