On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:49:45PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >I propose to integrate in the greatly improved setup (thanks!) my ports >of Gnu spell and of ispell that have long been available on >ftp.franken.de They would be part of the "text" category. > >One issue to address is that of providing "precompiled" dictionaries >(hash files). Raw dictionaries for many languages and for many >specialties are available on the Web. The ispell package provides >tools to compile them into hash files. > >I propose to include standard US and GB English hash files in the >ispell package. Alternatively (or in addition) we could allow separate >packages for hash files in different languages, but this may overwhelm >the "text" category and eventually become a problem. Having >"subcategories" in setup would then become useful :) > >OK?
Isn't aspell superior to ispell? This is from the ispell web page: "What's the Difference Between Ispell and Aspell? Aspell is a spelling checker written by Kevin Atkinson. Its primary advantage is that it is better at making suggestions when a word is seriously misspelled. For example, when given "trubble", ispell will suggest only "rubble", where aspell suggests "trouble" (as its first choice" as well as "dribble", "rubble", and a lot of other words. Its disadvantage is that the approximate-matching algorithm is specific to English." That is not much of a disadvantage, IMO. If it works as well as ispell for every language besides English and works better for English then aspell is better. cgf