On 24.03.15 00:17, Joe M wrote: > Hello, > > Is it possible to configure mutt to ignore the reply (>) portion of > the email when spell-checking. > > macro compose y <ispell><send-message> "spell-check and send" > is how I invoke the spell checker and I am using hunspell as the spell > checker. > > I read about spellutils, but, I could not find more details on it's > usage with hunspell. > > Any thoughts, please?
Does hunspell only hop from error to error, thus wasting your time on quoted text? The spellchecking I use - that provided by vim (my preferred composing editor within mutt), highlights all errors simultaneously. Thus no time or effort is wasted on quoted text, so long as I remain aware of the quoting - and my eyesight is still good enough for that. If that does not suffice, I just tried this: :.,$!egrep -v '^>' | spell -b - while composing this post, and it unsurprisingly spellchecked only the unquoted text. Perhaps you can similarly pipe the whole text ":.,$!" to the filter/spellcheck command pipe just as I have done. (The last '-' is needed to make "spell" take input from stdin rather than a file, and -b uses British spelling, so it won't expect Americanisms.) I needed to "apt-get install spell", but you could equally use another spellchecker. Well, that's the thoughts. The coffee has worn off. Oh, except for one: I use two spellcheckers in vim (mostly within mutt) - one for English, and one for Danish. Neither is active while I'm composing. Creativity ought not be obstructed by a spellchecker's critiquing. Prior to posting, I whack either ^E or ^D, then re-read what my fingers have typed - checking spelling, grammar, and whether even I can follow the thread of thoughts expressed. It's usually the latter which needs a bit of a tweak. Erik -- > It may not work well for you since it sounds like you're always in > terminal Vim but I thought I'd pass it along. > No, I don't believe in GUIs. - Arvid Warnecke, on vim-use ML.
