Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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 LyX is about. /C Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. How about here? http://wiki.lyx.org/FAQ/Introduction#toc1 Perhaps there could be link in that section to a page on focus/purpose/idea. I'll see what I can do, later. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 with, I dare say, much less effort than implementing on-the-fly spellchecking. Right now, I sometimes have to write the text in a separate editor and use LyX for formatting because correcting often-misspelled words (usual for non-native English speakers that get UK ad American spellings mixed up, for example) is quite awkward, time-consuming and error-prone. - Urtzi - -- Urtzi Jauregi Fakulteta za Matematiko in Fiziko, Univerza v Ljubljani Jadranska 19, Si-1000 Ljubljana Slovenija Tel: ++386 01 540 13 53 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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 LyX is about. /C Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. How about here? http://wiki.lyx.org/FAQ/Introduction#toc1 Perhaps there could be link in that section to a page on focus/purpose/idea. I'll see what I can do, later. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 with, I dare say, much less effort than implementing on-the-fly spellchecking. Right now, I sometimes have to write the text in a separate editor and use LyX for formatting because correcting often-misspelled words (usual for non-native English speakers that get UK ad American spellings mixed up, for example) is quite awkward, time-consuming and error-prone. - Urtzi - -- Urtzi Jauregi Fakulteta za Matematiko in Fiziko, Univerza v Ljubljani Jadranska 19, Si-1000 Ljubljana Slovenija Tel: ++386 01 540 13 53 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
<[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 LyX is about. > > /C > > > Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the > > boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. How about here? http://wiki.lyx.org/FAQ/Introduction#toc1 Perhaps there could be link in that section to a page on "focus/purpose/idea". I'll see what I can do, later. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 with, I dare say, much less effort than implementing on-the-fly spellchecking. Right now, I sometimes have to write the text in a separate editor and use LyX for formatting because correcting often-misspelled words (usual for non-native English speakers that get UK ad American spellings mixed up, for example) is quite awkward, time-consuming and error-prone. - Urtzi - -- Urtzi Jauregi Fakulteta za Matematiko in Fiziko, Univerza v Ljubljani Jadranska 19, Si-1000 Ljubljana Slovenija Tel: ++386 01 540 13 53 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 This tool works fairly well under Linux. It should also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It should work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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: http://wiki.lyx.org/Tools/LyX-GrammarChecker This tool works fairly well under Linux. It should also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It should work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. Yes but by converting it to C++, you could have some help maintaining it ;-) Another option is to convert it to python as it is deeply required in LyX. This was, you could still maintain it easily and it can be integrated with LyX. Abdel.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you think you want it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. 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 LyX is about. /C Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSADEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 what they should like and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... What they like is up to them. But I teach writing, so I think I get to tell people what helps with writing and what does not. rh SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard --== Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSADEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 This tool works fairly well under Linux. It should also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It should work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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: http://wiki.lyx.org/Tools/LyX-GrammarChecker This tool works fairly well under Linux. It should also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It should work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. Yes but by converting it to C++, you could have some help maintaining it ;-) Another option is to convert it to python as it is deeply required in LyX. This was, you could still maintain it easily and it can be integrated with LyX. Abdel.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you think you want it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. 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 LyX is about. /C Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSADEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 what they should like and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... What they like is up to them. But I teach writing, so I think I get to tell people what helps with writing and what does not. rh SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with style. No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between style and mere writing are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of humanities writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard --== Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSADEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 This tool works fairly well under Linux. It "should" also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It "should" work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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: http://wiki.lyx.org/Tools/LyX-GrammarChecker This tool works fairly well under Linux. It "should" also work under windows if Cygwin is installed, but it appears not to. It "should" work on MacOS X if Perl is installed, but I haven't tried that recently.. I've thought of getting this tool into LyX. However, this would involve rewriting it into C++. For me it is actually more convenient as an external Perl script, because that way I can maintain it would out having to recompile LyX, or even restart LyX. Yes but by converting it to C++, you could have some help maintaining it ;-) Another option is to convert it to python as it is deeply required in LyX. This was, you could still maintain it easily and it can be integrated with LyX. Abdel.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
> 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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his > or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with "style". Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of "humanities" writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you think you want it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with "style". 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 LyX is about. /C Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of "humanities" writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Hope this makes sense. Thank you for your patience with me on bringing this point across. Cheers, Sam -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with "style". No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of "humanities" writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with "style". No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of "humanities" writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSA & DEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 what they should like and what they shouldn't. Just an opinion ... What they like is up to them. But I teach writing, so I think I get to tell people what helps with writing and what does not. rh SB On Aug 13, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Richard Heck wrote: 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 it, you're either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Thanks Richard for the discursive effort! I'm seriously reconsidering my understanding of WYSIWYG and its typesetting counterpart. I used to think that focusing on writing means also paying attention to the order of letters, rather than assuming that this something to do with "style". No offense intended. But the point is an important one, anyway. I actually do think that paying too much attention to the order of the letters impedes writing. If I'm trying to write a paragraph and know I'm going to change it half a dozen times (at least), why do I care whether each word has been spelled correctly? That's clean-up, to be done once I've got the damn thing moderately stable. (That's why I still write so much with pen and paper, because it's the only way I know to really get rid of ALL the distractions.) Writing is hard, and I am firmly convinced that the tools we have grown accustomed to do not make our lives easier. Those bad habits are hard to unlearn, especially if you're not even aware you've got them. If I'm just writing a letter, then maybe that's different, but even then I'm not sure, actually. Either way, one thing for sure out of this discussion is that perhaps the boundaries between "style" and "mere writing" are not as clear cut. Also, of course, if your texts consists of many formula or a mass of strings of letters which are not in your dictionary, a on the fly spellcheck becomes utterly pointless (yes distracting!) and should be switched off. However, this is exactly what I was trying to say with my (in hindsight probably not very clever) example of "humanities" writing. For some people, there might not be much distraction (in form of occasional wavily lines), but rather a continually indication of your document writing status, which I consider is a basic feature. Maybe this is true of some documents, and maybe it'd be nice at some very late stage of the game, when you're just doing clean-up. But I just offer the suggestion that a continual indication of the status of a document that is very much in flux is worse than useless. Richard --== Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto --- Stefano Baroni - SISSA & DEMOCRITOS National Simulation Center - Trieste [+39] 040 3787 406 (tel) -528 (fax) / stefanobaroni (skype) Please, if possible, don't send me MS Word or PowerPoint attachments Why? See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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 developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 sure this discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. 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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-) No, a humorist ;=) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 users want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. Yes, it must be disablable. 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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen Hawking of software to use it? ;-)
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 a monument to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen Hawking of software to use it? ;-) They'd never conclude that, because they know I use it. I'm the Bart Simpson of software! ;-) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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 developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 sure this discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. 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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-) No, a humorist ;=) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 users want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. Yes, it must be disablable. 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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen Hawking of software to use it? ;-)
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 a monument to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it has possibilities. If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen Hawking of software to use it? ;-) They'd never conclude that, because they know I use it. I'm the Bart Simpson of software! ;-) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
[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 developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 sure this discussion is on point. Assuming that a significant number of users want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. /Paul
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 motivate some developer to tackle it), there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone would (hypothetically) be satisfied. 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 either wrong or not very focused on writing. But to each his or her own. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 you aren't an engineer, you're a humanist? ;-) No, a humorist ;=) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 users > want it on-the-fly (enough to motivate some developer to tackle it), > there would just need to be an option to enable/disable it and everyone > would (hypothetically) be satisfied. Yes, it must be disablable. 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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it "has possibilities". If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 came out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ three standard deviations east of genius. He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it "has possibilities". If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen Hawking of software to use it? ;-)
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 a monument to bloat, and he probably thinks KDE and Gnome came > > out of an Ira Levin distopia (Stepford Desktops). The guy also has an IQ > > three standard deviations east of genius. > > > > He tried LyX after my presentation at the LUG, and said it "has > > possibilities". If he adopted LyX, that would impress a lot of people. > > Or scare them off, because they'd conclude you have to be the Stephen > Hawking of software to use it? ;-) They'd never conclude that, because they know I use it. I'm the Bart Simpson of software! ;-) SteveT
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. Many thanks to the brave team of LyX developers, who are always confronted with hard decisions to make! Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 think that is an important goal. Marcelo Los referentes más importantes en compra/venta de autos se juntaron: Demotores y Yahoo! Ahora comprar o vender tu auto es más fácil. ¡Probalo! http://ar.autos.yahoo.com/
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 the implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like it, but I hate it. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 indicated an overwhelming support for it by many LyX users. Although the implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like it, but I hate it. I can take it or leave it too. 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. Personally, I'd rather see the effort go into bug fixing the standard spell check and integrating the spell check UI into the side bar. -- http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 confidence for correctly spelled words as I write. (One a good day, writing with gvim, I have found myself checking --in disbelieve-- if the checker hasn't failed if no mistakes showed up). 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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the lead developers. So I don't think that's the reason. Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing. It's the same reason WYSIWYG is a bad idea. You don't need that distraction when you're composing a document, any more than you need to make sure the page breaks are in a good place. The document will change. You need spellcheck, and a check on the page breaks, at the end of the process, which is why running spellcheck at the end is sufficient. IMHO. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 lead developers. Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=) I think Juergen is you man. JMarc
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 better, in my view to treat spell checking as a separate task. That way you can do a global rejection of any offered correction of something that is actually exactly what you wanted, or perhaps, add something to your personal dictionary. Cheers G
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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, if it will be provided. Cheers, Bo
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of thought. Much better, in my view to treat spell checking as a separate task. That way you can do a global rejection of any offered correction of something that is actually exactly what you wanted, or perhaps, add something to your personal dictionary. I concur with this totally. Furthermore, most of what I write using LyX is technical in nature. The yapping of a spell-checker would be bothersome and accelerate my descent into insanity. John O'Gorman Cheers G
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. Many thanks to the brave team of LyX developers, who are always confronted with hard decisions to make! Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 think that is an important goal. Marcelo Los referentes más importantes en compra/venta de autos se juntaron: Demotores y Yahoo! Ahora comprar o vender tu auto es más fácil. ¡Probalo! http://ar.autos.yahoo.com/
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 the implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like it, but I hate it. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 indicated an overwhelming support for it by many LyX users. Although the implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like it, but I hate it. I can take it or leave it too. 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. Personally, I'd rather see the effort go into bug fixing the standard spell check and integrating the spell check UI into the side bar. -- http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 confidence for correctly spelled words as I write. (One a good day, writing with gvim, I have found myself checking --in disbelieve-- if the checker hasn't failed if no mistakes showed up). 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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the lead developers. So I don't think that's the reason. Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing. It's the same reason WYSIWYG is a bad idea. You don't need that distraction when you're composing a document, any more than you need to make sure the page breaks are in a good place. The document will change. You need spellcheck, and a check on the page breaks, at the end of the process, which is why running spellcheck at the end is sufficient. IMHO. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 lead developers. Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=) I think Juergen is you man. JMarc
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 better, in my view to treat spell checking as a separate task. That way you can do a global rejection of any offered correction of something that is actually exactly what you wanted, or perhaps, add something to your personal dictionary. Cheers G
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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, if it will be provided. Cheers, Bo
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 most distracting and too easily breaks the thread of thought. Much better, in my view to treat spell checking as a separate task. That way you can do a global rejection of any offered correction of something that is actually exactly what you wanted, or perhaps, add something to your personal dictionary. I concur with this totally. Furthermore, most of what I write using LyX is technical in nature. The yapping of a spell-checker would be bothersome and accelerate my descent into insanity. John O'Gorman Cheers G
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
> 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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. Many thanks to the brave team of LyX developers, who are always confronted with hard decisions to make! Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
> > 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 think that is an important goal. Marcelo Los referentes más importantes en compra/venta de autos se juntaron: Demotores y Yahoo! Ahora comprar o vender tu auto es más fácil. ¡Probalo! http://ar.autos.yahoo.com/
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 the implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account its neccessity and common place. I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like it, but I hate it. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 indicated > > an overwhelming support for it by many LyX users. Although the > > implementation of new features needs to be carefully weighted in terms of > > required work effort, consideration for finally implementing an > > on-the-fly-spellchecker in the 1.6. series should also take into account > > its neccessity and common place. > > I always turn that off, if it exists. I understand that some people like > it, but I hate it. I can take it or leave it too. 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. Personally, I'd rather see the effort go into bug fixing the standard spell check and integrating the spell check UI into the side bar. -- http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 confidence for correctly spelled words as I write. (One a good day, writing with gvim, I have found myself checking --in disbelieve-- if the checker hasn't failed if no mistakes showed up). 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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Cheers, Sam
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 that up to now --at this highly advanced stage of LyX-- this rather basic feature has never emerged. Well, for what it's worth, I'm a humanist, and so is JMarc, one of the lead developers. So I don't think that's the reason. Rather, I think instant spellcheck distracts from the process of writing. It's the same reason WYSIWYG is a bad idea. You don't need that distraction when you're composing a document, any more than you need to make sure the page breaks are in a good place. The document will change. You need spellcheck, and a check on the page breaks, at the end of the process, which is why running spellcheck at the end is sufficient. IMHO. Richard -- == Richard G Heck, Jr Professor of Philosophy Brown University http://frege.brown.edu/heck/ == Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at: http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 > > lead developers. > > Me? Was that intended as some kind of insult? ;=) > > I think Juergen is you man. > > JMarc >
Re: On the fly spellcheck?
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 better, in my view to treat spell checking as a separate task. That way you can do a global rejection of any offered correction of something that is actually exactly what you wanted, or perhaps, add something to your personal dictionary. Cheers G
