hi
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzdzie with polish letter as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
Thanks
--
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:04:41 +0200
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzêdzie with polish letter ê as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell
HI
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzêdzie with polish letter ê as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
Hello Jaroslaw,
what you _probably_ forgot, is in the
hi
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzdzie with polish letter as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
Thanks
--
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:04:41 +0200
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzêdzie with polish letter ê as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell
HI
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word narzêdzie with polish letter ê as two different
words: narz and dzie.
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
Hello Jaroslaw,
what you _probably_ forgot, is in the
hi
Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
For istance:
it regards word "narzędzie" with polish letter "ę" as two different
words: "narz" and "dzie".
I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
Thanks
--
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:04:41 +0200
Jaroslaw Protasiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi
>
> Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
> For istance:
> it regards word "narzêdzie" with polish letter "ê" as two different
> words: "narz" and "dzie".
> I use lyx 1.3.5 for
HI
>>Spellchecker with polish aspell dictionary doesn't work properly.
>>For istance:
>>it regards word "narzêdzie" with polish letter "ê" as two different
>>words: "narz" and "dzie".
>>I use lyx 1.3.5 for windows. Aspell from commands line works corectly.
> Hello Jaroslaw,
>
> what you
\begin{enumerate}[{A}1.]
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
Big pieces of ERT can always be inputted as tex files, which in
turn can be checked separately.
You just need to synchronize compilations, e.g. close/open the lyx
file when tou chnage the tex bits.
--
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 06:29:19PM +, Les Denham wrote:
This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial
and error -- is it documented anywhere?
I don't know. Read through the lyx
\begin{enumerate}[{A}1.]
\item First item;
\item Second item.
\end{enumerate}
Big pieces of ERT can always be inputted as tex files, which in
turn can be checked separately.
You just need to synchronize compilations, e.g. close/open the lyx
file when tou chnage the tex bits.
--
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 06:29:19PM +, Les Denham wrote:
This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial
and error -- is it documented anywhere?
I don't know. Read through the lyx
>>> \begin{enumerate}[{A}1.]
>>> \item First item;
>>> \item Second item.
>>> \end{enumerate}
Big pieces of ERT can always be inputted as tex files, which in
turn can be checked separately.
You just need to synchronize compilations, e.g. close/open the lyx
file when tou chnage the tex bits.
--
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed to
contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to contain
words at all).
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 06:29:19PM +, Les Denham wrote:
> This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
> visible as normal text in the Lyx window. I found you could do this by trial
> and error -- is it documented anywhere?
I don't know. Read through the lyx
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal
skipping of
Paul == Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX
Alain == Alain DIDIERJEAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alain On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Alain wrote:
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed
to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to
contain words at all).
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul through aspell (for
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote:
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
visible as normal text in
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal
skipping of
Paul == Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX
Alain == Alain DIDIERJEAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alain On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Alain wrote:
Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed
to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to
contain words at all).
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul through aspell (for
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul as one can always spell-check one's
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote:
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
visible as normal text in
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box \emph{ followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
}. In this
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
However, LyX should start ispell in TeX mode, so the ispell-internal
skipping of
> "Paul" == Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul> as one can always
> "Alain" == Alain DIDIERJEAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alain> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Alain> wrote:
>> Not spellchecking ERT is intentional, since they are not supposed
>> to contain a lot of real words (ideally, they are not supposed to
>> contain
Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul> as one can always spell-check one's LyX document externally,
Paul> through aspell
On Apr 22, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Paul> I agree with you. However, according to the search that I did in
Paul> the archives of the list, ERTs are not spell-checked, what is
Paul> surprising. Of course that this LyX's limitation is not serious,
Paul> as one can always spell-check
Thanks for your answer! I understand your point of view. However,
sometimes, it is unavoidable the use of ERTs containing relevant text.
For instance, I am writing a document in which I use the package
enumerate. To use that package, it seems that it is really necessary
(up to my best
On Thursday 22 April 2004 17:11, Bennett Helm wrote:
> It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
> have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
This is not just useful for spellchecking: it makes the text within the ERT
visible as normal text
It is perhaps a surprising feature of LyX's ERT boxes that they don't
have to be individually syntactically well-formed LaTeX expressions.
Thus, you could have in one ERT box "\emph{" followed by some text (not
in ERT -- just ordinary text), followed by a second ERT box containing
"}". In this
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 08:21:41PM +0100, Paul Smith wrote:
Dear All
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
However,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 08:21:41PM +0100, Paul Smith wrote:
Dear All
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
However,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 08:21:41PM +0100, Paul Smith wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
> that does not happen. Any ideas?
IMHO, it should check ERT, as there might be visible text inside an ERT
(example: psfrag replacement text).
Dear All
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Paul
Dear All
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Paul
Dear All
Should not spellchecker pass through ERTs? I am writing a document where
that does not happen. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Paul
Hello,
who can I change le size of the fonts in the spellchecker option text
zones (they are very small). I have the same problem with the upper
most zone in the spellchecker window (where the faulty words are
displayed).
Thank you for your help,
--Nabil
Hello,
who can I change le size of the fonts in the spellchecker option text
zones (they are very small). I have the same problem with the upper
most zone in the spellchecker window (where the faulty words are
displayed).
Thank you for your help,
--Nabil
Hello,
who can I change le size of the fonts in the spellchecker option text
zones (they are very small). I have the same problem with the upper
most zone in the spellchecker window (where the faulty words are
displayed).
Thank you for your help,
--Nabil
51 matches
Mail list logo
