Richard, lets agree to differ for the time being and see how resources can be
best used for continuing the project in a meaningful way.
Cheers, Sam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicely phrased! I think it should be added somewhere to the wiki, although
I don't know where. Perhaps a page discussing the focus/purpose/idea of
LyX and WYSIWYM? Any ideas of where?
I'm thinking that such a page would be a good reference when explaining
what
I think improving the already existing (and fairly improvable)
spellchecker
is more important than adding a new one.
Adding missing features like Replace All (see feature request at
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3914 )
would notably improve the workflow in LyX
Richard, lets agree to differ for the time being and see how resources can be
best used for continuing the project in a meaningful way.
Cheers, Sam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicely phrased! I think it should be added somewhere to the wiki, although
I don't know where. Perhaps a page discussing the focus/purpose/idea of
LyX and WYSIWYM? Any ideas of where?
I'm thinking that such a page would be a good reference when explaining
what
I think improving the already existing (and fairly improvable)
spellchecker
is more important than adding a new one.
Adding missing features like Replace All (see feature request at
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3914 )
would notably improve the workflow in LyX
Richard, lets agree to differ for the time being and see how resources can be
best used for continuing the project in a meaningful way.
Cheers, Sam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nicely phrased! I think it should be added somewhere to the wiki, although
> I don't know where. Perhaps a page discussing the focus/purpose/idea of
> LyX and WYSIWYM? Any ideas of where?
>
> I'm thinking that such a page would be a good reference when explaining
I think improving the already existing (and fairly improvable)
spellchecker
is more important than adding a new one.
Adding missing features like "Replace All" (see feature request at
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3914 )
would notably improve the workflow in LyX
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
http://wiki.lyx.org/Tools/LyX-GrammarChecker
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
it, you're
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if
Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may
be useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people what
they should like
Stefano Baroni wrote:
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may be
useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
http://wiki.lyx.org/Tools/LyX-GrammarChecker
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
it, you're
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if
Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may
be useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people what
they should like
Stefano Baroni wrote:
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may be
useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
> implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
> that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
On 8/12/07, Fernando Roig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
I thought about it:
> Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
> response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
> painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
> wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
> it,
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if
Sam Lewis wrote:
Of course. And anyone who wants to code this can do so. This was in
response to the suggestion that LyX lacked this incredibly wonderful and
painfully obvious feature. My point was that it isn't obviously
wonderful. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that, if you think you want
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may
be useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people what
they should like
Stefano Baroni wrote:
I do not like on the fly spellcheck either (among other nuisances, it
forces me to change the default language everytime I switch from one
language to another). However: 1) when writing short letters it may be
useful; 2) I do not think it is a good idea to tell people
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
/C
--
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
Bu I don't like people, I can't be an humanist!
JMarc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
Fernando
Citando Paul A. Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
Whoops. Sorry.
Richard
--
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to
On Sunday 12 August 2007 04:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
If
On Sunday 12 August 2007 10:22, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of
Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly spellchecking
is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in vi (Vim is too
touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated, Icewm is a monument
to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome
On Sunday 12 August 2007 12:58, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
spellchecking is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in
vi (Vim is too touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated,
Icewm is
On Sunday 12 August 2007 17:34:38 Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
BTW, how did that go?
--
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
/C
--
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
Bu I don't like people, I can't be an humanist!
JMarc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
Fernando
Citando Paul A. Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
Whoops. Sorry.
Richard
--
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to
On Sunday 12 August 2007 04:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
If
On Sunday 12 August 2007 10:22, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of
Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly spellchecking
is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in vi (Vim is too
touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated, Icewm is a monument
to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome
On Sunday 12 August 2007 12:58, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
spellchecking is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in
vi (Vim is too touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated,
Icewm is
On Sunday 12 August 2007 17:34:38 Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
BTW, how did that go?
--
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
/C
--
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-)
Bu I don't like people, I can't be an humanist!
JMarc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some
Instead of on-the-fly spellchecking, did anybody think about
implmenting grammar checking (not necessarily on-the-fly)? I think
that this could be a much interesting feature.
Fernando
Citando "Paul A. Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
Whoops. Sorry.
Richard
--
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
writing.
+1
I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users
want it on-the-fly (enough to
On Sunday 12 August 2007 04:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
> >> lead developers.
> >
> > Me? Was that intended as some kind of
On Sunday 12 August 2007 10:22, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of
> >> writing.
> >
> > +1
>
> I'm happy to just run spellcheck at the end, but I'm not sure this
> discussion is on point. Assuming that a
Steve Litt wrote:
All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly spellchecking
is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in vi (Vim is too
touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated, Icewm is a monument
to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome
On Sunday 12 August 2007 12:58, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:
> > All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
> > spellchecking is a techogeek supreme, probably as likely to document in
> > vi (Vim is too touchy feely). He uses fvwm because fvwm2 is too bloated,
> >
On Sunday 12 August 2007 17:34:38 Steve Litt wrote:
>
> All I can tell you is the guy from my LUG who wanted on-the-fly
BTW, how did that go?
--
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
Not now.
Is there any plan to add
on-the-fly spellchecking later?
Being considered for 1.6.0, along with auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
Cheers,
Bo
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although the implementation
Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
Not now.
Is there any plan to add
on-the-fly spellchecking later?
Being considered for 1.6.0, along with
auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
Cheers,
Bo
I want to have on-the-fly spellchecking,
auto-completion and abbreviation. I
Sam Lewis wrote:
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although
On Saturday 11 August 2007 17:05:41 Richard Heck wrote:
Sam Lewis wrote:
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It
would bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature
has been standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has
Hi Mike (and others),
My spelling is so bad, that it's usually better to just get one with what
I want to write and then correct at the end.
On a side note, my spelling is not very good either, but I found that it has
improved through the use of an immediate indication. This also gives me
Sam Lewis wrote:
I think one of the crucial differences, is the naturally high number of
mathematics, logisticians, etc. in the LyX user and developer community, who
have a very different approach to *writing* than one finds humanities. This
presumably has resulted in this peculiar situation
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
I think Juergen is you man.
JMarc
This has been on bugzilla for some time - cast your vote for implementation :)
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718
On 8/11/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:06:49 Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think
instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of
thought. Much
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of
thought.
Both sides have their (good) reasons to like/dislike this feature. LyX
will certainly provide an option to turn this feature on or off,
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 21:15 +0100, Grahame Blackwood wrote:
On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:06:49 Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think
instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is
Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
Not now.
Is there any plan to add
on-the-fly spellchecking later?
Being considered for 1.6.0, along with auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
Cheers,
Bo
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although the implementation
Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
Not now.
Is there any plan to add
on-the-fly spellchecking later?
Being considered for 1.6.0, along with
auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
Cheers,
Bo
I want to have on-the-fly spellchecking,
auto-completion and abbreviation. I
Sam Lewis wrote:
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although
On Saturday 11 August 2007 17:05:41 Richard Heck wrote:
Sam Lewis wrote:
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It
would bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature
has been standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has
Hi Mike (and others),
My spelling is so bad, that it's usually better to just get one with what
I want to write and then correct at the end.
On a side note, my spelling is not very good either, but I found that it has
improved through the use of an immediate indication. This also gives me
Sam Lewis wrote:
I think one of the crucial differences, is the naturally high number of
mathematics, logisticians, etc. in the LyX user and developer community, who
have a very different approach to *writing* than one finds humanities. This
presumably has resulted in this peculiar situation
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
I think Juergen is you man.
JMarc
This has been on bugzilla for some time - cast your vote for implementation :)
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718
On 8/11/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:06:49 Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think
instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of
thought. Much
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of
thought.
Both sides have their (good) reasons to like/dislike this feature. LyX
will certainly provide an option to turn this feature on or off,
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 21:15 +0100, Grahame Blackwood wrote:
On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:06:49 Richard Heck wrote:
Rather, I think
instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is
> Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
Not now.
> Is there any plan to add
> on-the-fly spellchecking later?
Being considered for 1.6.0, along with auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
Cheers,
Bo
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although the implementation
> > Is there any way to do on-the-fly spellchecking?
>
> Not now.
>
> > Is there any plan to add
> > on-the-fly spellchecking later?
>
> Being considered for 1.6.0, along with
> auto-completion, abbreviation etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Bo
>
I want to have on-the-fly spellchecking,
auto-completion and
Sam Lewis wrote:
I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It would
bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature has been
standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has indicated an overwhelming
support for it by many LyX users. Although
On Saturday 11 August 2007 17:05:41 Richard Heck wrote:
> Sam Lewis wrote:
> > I also would like to express my support for a on-the-fly-spellchecker. It
> > would bring LyX in line with other similar editors, where such a feature
> > has been standard for many year. A feature poll in our wiki has
Hi Mike (and others),
> My spelling is so bad, that it's usually better to just get one with what
> I want to write and then correct at the end.
On a side note, my spelling is not very good either, but I found that it has
improved through the use of an "immediate indication". This also gives me
Sam Lewis wrote:
I think one of the crucial differences, is the "naturally" high number of
mathematics, logisticians, etc. in the LyX user and developer community, who
have a very different approach to *writing* than one finds humanities. This
presumably has resulted in this peculiar situation
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the
> lead developers.
Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=)
I think Juergen is you man.
JMarc
This has been on bugzilla for some time - cast your vote for implementation :)
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=718
On 8/11/07, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one
On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:06:49 Richard Heck wrote:
> Rather, I think
> instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing.
I agree with this. A spell checker highlighting in some way, anything it does
not understand, is most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of
thought.
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
