Re: Aspell and LyX
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
At this point the GNOME people will be fuming because they don't have a
decent generic spell checker interface so either you or they can write a
wrapper in C for the generic spell-checker library. Of course those
diehard C bigots out there will instead opt to rewrite ispell from scratch
using OO techniques and make it dependent upon some dozen or so GNOME
libraries rendering it completely useless to the rest of the known
universe.
I take it you don't like Gnome???
So maybe now you understand what I mean.
I understood what you meant from the beginning. I was just thinking to go
for maximum portability and write by wrapper library in pure C but I think
I will use C++. See below.
I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability
guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However
that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could
wrap wrap my C++ interface in C.
This is almost the same as what I've been telling you in all my emails.
The thing is that I also went it to be acceptable for AbiWord and Mozilla.
I know that AbiWord has decided to directly incorporate the ispell source
into there distribution and use it as I library. Yuck...
I think that I will have my actual library portable enough to make mozilla
and AbiWord people happy (and any one else who has stay in the dark ages
of C++ guide lines) but then provide some extra headers which will add
exception support and template wrapper to some of the classes to increase
type safety.
Do you think that would be a good solution. Do you plan on using
exceptions in LyX any time soon. I know from me own experience that
exceptions greatly reduce the amount of error checking code I have to
write because I can just wrap my entire code in one big try block like
this
int main()
try {
...
} catch (exception e) {
cerr e.what() endl;
return -1;
}
And only worry about errors when I need to do something special.
PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex
file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of
the manual.
get lyx-1.1.4:
lyx --export latex filename.lyx
you still need a display and windows will open and close but it's all
automated thanks to Andre'.
Ok I will try it out. The latest pre release was a bit anting to use
so I went back to 1.1.12 but I will give this new supposable stable version
a try.
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> At this point the GNOME people will be fuming because they don't have a
> decent generic spell checker interface so either you or they can write a
> wrapper in C for the generic spell-checker library. Of course those
> diehard C bigots out there will instead opt to rewrite ispell from scratch
> using OO techniques and make it dependent upon some dozen or so GNOME
> libraries rendering it completely useless to the rest of the known
> universe.
I take it you don't like Gnome???
> So maybe now you understand what I mean.
I understood what you meant from the beginning. I was just thinking to go
for maximum portability and write by wrapper library in pure C but I think
I will use C++. See below.
>
> > I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability
> > guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However
> > that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could
> > wrap wrap my C++ interface in C.
>
> This is almost the same as what I've been telling you in all my emails.
The thing is that I also went it to be acceptable for AbiWord and Mozilla.
I know that AbiWord has decided to directly incorporate the ispell source
into there distribution and use it as I library. Yuck...
I think that I will have my actual library portable enough to make mozilla
and AbiWord people happy (and any one else who has stay in the dark ages
of C++ guide lines) but then provide some extra headers which will add
exception support and template wrapper to some of the classes to increase
type safety.
Do you think that would be a good solution. Do you plan on using
exceptions in LyX any time soon. I know from me own experience that
exceptions greatly reduce the amount of error checking code I have to
write because I can just wrap my entire code in one big try block like
this
int main()
try {
...
} catch (exception & e) {
cerr << e.what() << endl;
return -1;
}
And only worry about errors when I need to do something special.
>
> > PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex
> > file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of
> > the manual.
>
> get lyx-1.1.4:
>
> lyx --export latex filename.lyx
>
> you still need a display and windows will open and close but it's all
> automated thanks to Andre'.
Ok I will try it out. The latest pre release was a bit anting to use
so I went back to 1.1.12 but I will give this new supposable stable version
a try.
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 04-Feb-2000 Allan Rae wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [...] | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the | world. Perfect for LyX then. But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. I'm working on adding libsigc++ which means we can kiss 2.7.2 goodbye. Libsigc++ would probably be as restrictive as aspell given its heavy use of templates. Well we kissed goodbye to gcc 2.7.2.x with the first 1.1.x release, if it's for that! Greets Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top? -- Jerry Muscha -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote: On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) Do the other developers fell that way? I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. My Aspell C++ interface using exceptions, and templates. If you can compile and use my interface you can compile Aspell so wrapping Ispell in aspell will almost be pointless. I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could wrap wrap my C++ interface in C. Or I could develop a C interface to Aspell and Ispell. I can then wrap this in C++. Do all the LyX developers think I should do the second? If you want to kiss gcc 2.7.2 good by then perhaps you MIGHT be better off using aspell directly. I don't plan to make my Aspell/Ispell interface library as functional as directly using Aspell. However, the Aspell/Ispell interface will provide all the needed functionality for most applications. The stuff that won't be included is low level Aspell specific stuff like converting words to there sounds like equivalent, creating new word list classes, and the like. Please look at the CVS source to see what my current interface looks like as it changed a bit from aspell .28.3. The interface in "lib" is mostly stable except for the tokinizer and check functions. The stuff in "filter" is extremely unstable as it is very new and has many problems I need to address. The stuff in "util" is independent classes and functions which are also very unstable unless they are visible by header files in "lib/inc". The "src" directly is the actual aspell utility. PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of the manual. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. My Aspell C++ interface using exceptions, and templates. If you can compile and use my interface you can compile Aspell so wrapping Ispell in aspell will almost be pointless. Except then you'd have your aspell library, ispell and a generic spell-checker library that used whichever was installed on the system. The generic spell-checker library would be written in C++ since that's the most sensible solution. When you've got that working KDE will love you and so will we. We'd be able to ditch most of our current spell-checker stuff, incorporate the generic spell-checker library and then we could automatically use whichever spellchecker was installed on a given users machine. At this point the GNOME people will be fuming because they don't have a decent generic spell checker interface so either you or they can write a wrapper in C for the generic spell-checker library. Of course those diehard C bigots out there will instead opt to rewrite ispell from scratch using OO techniques and make it dependent upon some dozen or so GNOME libraries rendering it completely useless to the rest of the known universe. Later on someone on Beos or Windows or Plan9 or even the Andromeda galaxy can extend your generic spell-checker library to support some other wizbang spell checker (which might be a program or a library). So maybe now you understand what I mean. I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could wrap wrap my C++ interface in C. This is almost the same as what I've been telling you in all my emails. PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of the manual. get lyx-1.1.4: lyx --export latex filename.lyx you still need a display and windows will open and close but it's all automated thanks to Andre'. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 04-Feb-2000 Allan Rae wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > >> On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> [...] >> > | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the >> > | world. >> > >> > Perfect for LyX then. >> >> But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses >> exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. > > I'm working on adding libsigc++ which means we can kiss 2.7.2 goodbye. > Libsigc++ would probably be as restrictive as aspell given its heavy use > of templates. > Well we kissed goodbye to gcc 2.7.2.x with the first 1.1.x release, if it's for that! Greets Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug If I'm over the hill, why is it I don't recall ever being on top? -- Jerry Muscha -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > > > C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) > > > > Do the other developers fell that way? > > I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell > C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. My Aspell C++ interface using exceptions, and templates. If you can compile and use my interface you can compile Aspell so wrapping Ispell in aspell will almost be pointless. I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could wrap wrap my C++ interface in C. Or I could develop a C interface to Aspell and Ispell. I can then wrap this in C++. Do all the LyX developers think I should do the second? If you want to kiss gcc 2.7.2 good by then perhaps you MIGHT be better off using aspell directly. I don't plan to make my Aspell/Ispell interface library as functional as directly using Aspell. However, the Aspell/Ispell interface will provide all the needed functionality for most applications. The stuff that won't be included is low level Aspell specific stuff like converting words to there sounds like equivalent, creating new word list classes, and the like. Please look at the CVS source to see what my current interface looks like as it changed a bit from aspell .28.3. The interface in "lib" is mostly stable except for the tokinizer and check functions. The stuff in "filter" is extremely unstable as it is very new and has many problems I need to address. The stuff in "util" is independent classes and functions which are also very unstable unless they are visible by header files in "lib/inc". The "src" directly is the actual aspell utility. PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of the manual. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell > > C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. > > My Aspell C++ interface using exceptions, and templates. If you can > compile and use my interface you can compile Aspell so wrapping Ispell in > aspell will almost be pointless. Except then you'd have your aspell library, ispell and a generic spell-checker library that used whichever was installed on the system. The generic spell-checker library would be written in C++ since that's the most sensible solution. When you've got that working KDE will love you and so will we. We'd be able to ditch most of our current spell-checker stuff, incorporate the generic spell-checker library and then we could automatically use whichever spellchecker was installed on a given users machine. At this point the GNOME people will be fuming because they don't have a decent generic spell checker interface so either you or they can write a wrapper in C for the generic spell-checker library. Of course those diehard C bigots out there will instead opt to rewrite ispell from scratch using OO techniques and make it dependent upon some dozen or so GNOME libraries rendering it completely useless to the rest of the known universe. Later on someone on Beos or Windows or Plan9 or even the Andromeda galaxy can extend your generic spell-checker library to support some other wizbang spell checker (which might be a program or a library). So maybe now you understand what I mean. > I could develop a new interface which conforms to the mozilla portability > guidelines (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html). However > that still leaves out C programs from using my interface. Then I could > wrap wrap my C++ interface in C. This is almost the same as what I've been telling you in all my emails. > PS: Is there a way to get LyX to read in a .lyx file and generate a .tex > file from the command line so that I can fully automate the building of > the manual. get lyx-1.1.4: lyx --export latex filename.lyx you still need a display and windows will open and close but it's all automated thanks to Andre'. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Aspell and LyX
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. | | Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams | that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. Yes we do, and if I am not mistaken that is a patch we got from you. | Regarding problems with C++ I guess that we don't need (and don't want) | a C interface/library. LyX 1.1.4 is gone a long way regarding C++ and STL | and can also only be compiled with more modern C++-Compilers so it should | be no problem to use your C++-Interface. | | The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of | the bigger picture here. This is a _LyX Developers List_ :-) What did you expect? Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Unfortunately my spell checker has two barriers against it being adapted | by mainstream Open Soutce programs. 1) It is written in C++ and all two | many Open Source projects are still in pure C. 2) It is written in very | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the | world. Perfect for LyX then. But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. | So, what I would like to now is instead of coming up with a interface | for just LyX I would like to come up with a pure C interace/library | which will use aspell if it is available and if not use Ispell. C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) Do the other developers fell that way? | Are you up to working with me on designing such an interface? I will | handle the Aspell interface while I will late someone else handle the | ispell interface. I will also need lots of help because I have no clue | how to dynamically load code at run time. Why do you need to do that? Anyway look at the dload in libtool. That is more or less portable interface to different systems dlopen. Ok thanks. I need to be able to load aspell if it is installed on the system at run time. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [...] | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the | world. Perfect for LyX then. But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. I'm working on adding libsigc++ which means we can kiss 2.7.2 goodbye. Libsigc++ would probably be as restrictive as aspell given its heavy use of templates. C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) Do the other developers fell that way? I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. Then C++ apps get a good C++ interface to use and C programmers get a C-wrapper for the C++ interface. Don't ask me how it works it's just something I'd investigate if I were you. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Aspell and LyX
Do the other developers fell that way? I answer the question 'do others feel that way': Yes. C is poison in a C++ project. Andre' PS: I wonder why LyX isn't dead ;-) PPS: Lars, I still don't get your mails because of your ø in the From: header I believe there is a way to specify encoding for headers, at least I do get mails from people with ä, ö or ü in their names. I think it is something with 'iso' and '?' and '='. You'd make me very happy if you could do that, I always miss half of the discussion, and browsing the archives is a pain... -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aspell and LyX
Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. | | Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams | that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. Yes we do, and if I am not mistaken that is a patch we got from you. | > Regarding problems with C++ I guess that we don't need (and don't want) | > a C interface/library. LyX 1.1.4 is gone a long way regarding C++ and STL | > and can also only be compiled with more modern C++-Compilers so it should | > be no problem to use your C++-Interface. | | The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of | the bigger picture here. This is a _LyX Developers List_ :-) What did you expect? Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Unfortunately my spell checker has two barriers against it being adapted > | by mainstream Open Soutce programs. 1) It is written in C++ and all two > | many Open Source projects are still in pure C. 2) It is written in very > | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the > | world. > > Perfect for LyX then. But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. > | So, what I would like to now is instead of coming up with a interface > | for just LyX I would like to come up with a pure C interace/library > | which will use aspell if it is available and if not use Ispell. > > C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) Do the other developers fell that way? > > | Are you up to working with me on designing such an interface? I will > | handle the Aspell interface while I will late someone else handle the > | ispell interface. I will also need lots of help because I have no clue > | how to dynamically load code at run time. > > Why do you need to do that? > Anyway look at the dload in libtool. That is more or less portable > interface to different systems dlopen. Ok thanks. I need to be able to load aspell if it is installed on the system at run time. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > [...] > > | modern C++ which means it is not the most portable thing in the > > | world. > > > > Perfect for LyX then. > > But you want to maintain compatibility with gcc 2.7.2? My library uses > exceptions, rtti, template specilation amoung other things. I'm working on adding libsigc++ which means we can kiss 2.7.2 goodbye. Libsigc++ would probably be as restrictive as aspell given its heavy use of templates. > > C is not good for C++ programs. (usable yes, but not good) > > Do the other developers fell that way? I've already said you might be better off wrapping ispell with your aspell C++ interface and then once that works worry about a C wrapper. Then C++ apps get a good C++ interface to use and C programmers get a C-wrapper for the C++ interface. Don't ask me how it works it's just something I'd investigate if I were you. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Aspell and LyX
> Do the other developers fell that way? I answer the question 'do others feel that way': Yes. C is poison in a C++ project. Andre' PS: I wonder why LyX isn't dead ;-) PPS: Lars, I still don't get your mails because of your ø in the From: header I believe there is a way to specify encoding for headers, at least I do get mails from people with ä, ö or ü in their names. I think it is something with 'iso' and '?' and '='. You'd make me very happy if you could do that, I always miss half of the discussion, and browsing the archives is a pain... -- André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aspell and LyX
Juergen Vigna wrote: Hi Kevin! On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: Back in February of 1999 I posted A proposal to integrate Aspell into Lyx. I attached the relevant parts of the conversation as a text file for quick review of those who where here and to bring those new to this list up to speed. Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. So, what I would like to now is instead of coming up with a interface for just LyX I would like to come up with a pure C interace/library which will use aspell if it is available and if not use Ispell. Are you up to working with me on designing such an interface? I will handle the Aspell interface while I will late someone else handle the ispell interface. I will also need lots of help because I have no clue how to dynamically load code at run time. As we told you before, we are happy if you make the spellchecker-interface better. The important thing is that the interface supports ISPELL, as that is the most spread U*IX spellchecker. Regarding problems with C++ I guess that we don't need (and don't want) a C interface/library. LyX 1.1.4 is gone a long way regarding C++ and STL and can also only be compiled with more modern C++-Compilers so it should be no problem to use your C++-Interface. The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of the bigger picture here. Hope I answered some of your questions, it is important that all new things are added to the cvs-tree of LyX, so if you want to add it you should download the latest sources via a cvs-interface. Kind of. But not really. -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. Yes that's true! The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of the bigger picture here. That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) Kind of. But not really. Then I really don't understand what you really want to know. Could you be more specific? Greets Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug Elevators smell different to midgets. -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) So you are saying you are not willing to spend a little extra time to make your code accesable to other projects. It depends what you really want to do and how much time YOU want to spend to include this into LyX. As YOU are the one interested in including it. Well you are not one of the developers in my initial decision. Nice to know you decide who is a LyX developer :) Lets see what some of them have to say. I know at least one of them is subscribed to the aspell mailing list. Well I'm too interested, what other fellow LyX developers think #:O) BTW.: I still don't know what you really want to do. Maybe it's just me who has a hard time understand that, but well there's sure someone on the list not as dumb as I am who can explain me. Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug "I take Him shopping with me. I say, 'OK, Jesus, help me find a bargain'" --Tammy Faye Bakker -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote: On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) So you are saying you are not willing to spend a little extra time to make your code accesable to other projects. It depends what you really want to do and how much time YOU want to spend to include this into LyX. As YOU are the one interested in including it. Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals. Well you are not one of the developers in my initial decision. Nice to know you decide who is a LyX developer :) That was a typo. I ment discussion not decision but I think you already knew that. I don't mean to exclude you my any means. It just that you were not one of the developers who discussion this with me inititally. Lets see what some of them have to say. I know at least one of them is subscribed to the aspell mailing list. Well I'm too interested, what other fellow LyX developers think #:O) I DID NOT mean to insult you BTW.: I still don't know what you really want to do. Maybe it's just me who has a hard time understand that, but well there's sure someone on the list not as dumb as I am who can explain me. I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If not humm.. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals. I guess if you have a nice API in your library and it can be included in distributions I guess why not use it if it simplifies things! If it is more complicated to use then the already working functions, well ... were not one of the developers who discussion this with me inititally. I have been on holiday that time (6 month in Latin Amerika), but I did follow the discussion on the lyx-devel-mailing-list-web-mirror! I DID NOT mean to insult you I am NOT insulted at all you should have seen the smilies #:O) I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If not humm.. Seems nice but probably we would need some API proposal on how you intend to make this happen. How can we say YES or NO if we only know there should be somewhat, but what ...??? I guess you'll get similar answers from the other core developers too (if they answer as normally I've experienced and I do that too) if my opinion is already expressed in a mail an other core developer writes I don't bother to answer too, we are only a few and knew each other for quite some years now ;) So what I want to tell you with my questions that we need something concrete to tell you if it's worth spending some time, also if its only the .h include file with the functions prototyping you intend to export from your library. Ciao Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure. -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
I confess to being subscribed to the aspell mailing list, so I'm probably the person Kevin is referring to. Regarding a generic reusable spell checker interface: I think the specs were already completed in the old discussion... What remained in that discussion was just the final synthesis and polishing of the issues, and I thought it was natural that you did that, since you are the one that offered to implement this stuff. Kevin, exactly what do you want us to do? Restate those specs and resynthesis them into a polished design for you? Now, that's too easy. We can't do all of the work for you. What I am willing to do, however, is to critize a synthesis that you present. Maybe you are asking for us to restate the specs in a C setting? If this is what you want, you might want to go elsewhere. The LyX team is a C++ team, and I think we can admit that we do not have the necessary expertice in wrapping C++ in a C setting. Please don't take this as a turn-down. It's not. It's just that, as Juergen said, we are busy with other stuff that we consider more important. We all only have so much time. Take this as it is: An opportunity to use us as a reviewing facility. After all, we have some expertice in what the perfect spell checker interface should look like, so this might be valuable to you anyway. Let me reiterate that I wish the best for Aspell, because I think it's a superior technology that should prevail. However, I can't volunteer much time to make Aspell the world dominator. Greets, Asger
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project
can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C
projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals.
I guess if you have a nice API in your library and it can be included in
distributions I guess why not use it if it simplifies things! If it is
more complicated to use then the already working functions, well ...
Well, considering I have bigger goals than LyX it might be a bit more
complicated but it should not be way more complicated. But you will
lose the convinces of C++ and some for efficacy reason you will have
to use pointers to functions for example one of my structure will
be.
typedef struct {
void * data;
const char * (* next) (void * d);
int (* at_end) (void * d);
} Emulation;
Of course you could wright a C++ wrapper for this.
I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem
interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell
if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If
not humm..
Seems nice but probably we would need some API proposal on how you intend
to make this happen. How can we say YES or NO if we only know there should
be somewhat, but what ...???
You should get a draft soon. I am trying to get more than the LyX team
involved in this
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: If you try to design your library in C using OO techniques then you will probably find it becomes considerably less useful and maintainable than if you implemented it as C++ and provided a simple wrapper interface in C. My code is in C++. The wrapper interface will be in C but it will be a bit more than a wrapper as I want it also to resort to using Ispell if Aspell is not available to increase portability. This is where I want LyX team help. Provide the ispell part. Naturally this wrapper will be a separate library that is not part of aspell and should be small enough that programs that want to use it can include it with there distribution. I'm no expert in wrapping code so you might like to consider approaching the KDE and gtk-- teams for suggestions about writing in C++ and providing a thin C wrapper. If you do so you should also include the draft of the spellchecker classes that you came up with last year as a possible interface so they have some idea of what you would be doing. Actually I just sent an email to the g++ mailing list about this As part of your plan for spell-checker world domination would you be making a library implementation of aspell? If so that might be the best interface to start with since it would be more elaborate than ispell would require. Then you'd only have to figure out how to wrap the C++ with C. It's got to be easier than the reverse. Um, absolutely. Aspell IS a library, but, it is undocumented because the library is in a constant state of flux. I seam to redesign a major part of it with each new release. I am really hopping things will settle down soon. Sorry if I was massively unclear. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
Juergen Vigna wrote: > > Hi Kevin! > > On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > Back in February of 1999 I posted A proposal to integrate Aspell into > > Lyx. I attached the relevant parts of the conversation as a text file > > for quick review of those who where here and to bring those new to this > > list up to speed. > > > > Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. > > So, what I would like to now is instead of coming up with a interface > > for just LyX I would like to come up with a pure C interace/library > > which will use aspell if it is available and if not use Ispell. > > > > Are you up to working with me on designing such an interface? I will > > handle the Aspell interface while I will late someone else handle the > > ispell interface. I will also need lots of help because I have no clue > > how to dynamically load code at run time. > > As we told you before, we are happy if you make the spellchecker-interface > better. The important thing is that the interface supports ISPELL, as that > is the most spread U*IX spellchecker. > > Regarding problems with C++ I guess that we don't need (and don't want) > a C interface/library. LyX 1.1.4 is gone a long way regarding C++ and STL > and can also only be compiled with more modern C++-Compilers so it should > be no problem to use your C++-Interface. The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of the bigger picture here. Hope I answered some of your questions, it is important that all new things > are added to the cvs-tree of LyX, so if you want to add it you should > download the latest sources via a cvs-interface. Kind of. But not really. -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
>> >> Well as much as I can see we have aspell support in LyX. > > Ok I have not taken a good look at the source but right now it seams > that you still use ispell/aspell through a pipe interface. > Yes that's true! > > The diffrence here is that you are only thinking of LyX I am thinking of > the bigger picture here. > That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) > > Kind of. But not really. Then I really don't understand what you really want to know. Could you be more specific? Greets Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug Elevators smell different to midgets. -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: >> That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other >> projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project >> too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) > > So you are saying you are not willing to spend a little extra time to make > your code accesable to other projects. > It depends what you really want to do and how much time YOU want to spend to include this into LyX. As YOU are the one interested in including it. > > Well you are not one of the developers in my initial decision. Nice to know you decide who is a LyX developer :) > Lets see what some of them have to say. I know at least one of them is > subscribed to the aspell mailing list. Well I'm too interested, what other fellow LyX developers think #:O) BTW.: I still don't know what you really want to do. Maybe it's just me who has a hard time understand that, but well there's sure someone on the list not as dumb as I am who can explain me. Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug "I take Him shopping with me. I say, 'OK, Jesus, help me find a bargain'" --Tammy Faye Bakker -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote: > On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > >> That doesn't matter. Whatever you implement you can use that for other > >> projects too. I don't think we are interested in working on other project > >> too, as we already have little time for LyX right now (at least me ;) > > > > So you are saying you are not willing to spend a little extra time to make > > your code accesable to other projects. > > It depends what you really want to do and how much time YOU want to spend > to include this into LyX. As YOU are the one interested in including it. > Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals. > > Well you are not one of the developers in my initial decision. > > Nice to know you decide who is a LyX developer :) That was a typo. I ment discussion not decision but I think you already knew that. I don't mean to exclude you my any means. It just that you were not one of the developers who discussion this with me inititally. > > > Lets see what some of them have to say. I know at least one of them is > > subscribed to the aspell mailing list. > > Well I'm too interested, what other fellow LyX developers think #:O) > I DID NOT mean to insult you > BTW.: I still don't know what you really want to do. Maybe it's just me > who has a hard time understand that, but well there's sure someone > on the list not as dumb as I am who can explain me. I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If not humm.. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project > can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C > projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals. > I guess if you have a nice API in your library and it can be included in distributions I guess why not use it if it simplifies things! If it is more complicated to use then the already working functions, well ... > were not one of the developers who discussion this with me inititally. I have been on holiday that time (6 month in Latin Amerika), but I did follow the discussion on the lyx-devel-mailing-list-web-mirror! > I DID NOT mean to insult you > I am NOT insulted at all you should have seen the smilies #:O) > I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem > interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell > if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If > not humm.. Seems nice but probably we would need some API proposal on how you intend to make this happen. How can we say YES or NO if we only know there should be somewhat, but what ...??? I guess you'll get similar answers from the other core developers too (if they answer as normally I've experienced and I do that too) if my opinion is already expressed in a mail an other core developer writes I don't bother to answer too, we are only a few and knew each other for quite some years now ;) So what I want to tell you with my questions that we need something concrete to tell you if it's worth spending some time, also if its only the .h include file with the functions prototyping you intend to export from your library. Ciao Jürgen -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._ Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Italienallee 13/N Tel:+39-0471-450260 I-39100 Bozen Fax:+39-0471-450296 ITALY Web:http://www.sad.it/~jug I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure. -._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Re: Aspell and LyX
I confess to being subscribed to the aspell mailing list, so I'm probably the person Kevin is referring to. Regarding a generic reusable spell checker interface: I think the specs were already completed in the old discussion... What remained in that discussion was just the final synthesis and polishing of the issues, and I thought it was natural that you did that, since you are the one that offered to implement this stuff. Kevin, exactly what do you want us to do? Restate those specs and resynthesis them into a polished design for you? Now, that's too easy. We can't do all of the work for you. What I am willing to do, however, is to critize a synthesis that you present. Maybe you are asking for us to restate the specs in a C setting? If this is what you want, you might want to go elsewhere. The LyX team is a C++ team, and I think we can admit that we do not have the necessary expertice in wrapping C++ in a C setting. Please don't take this as a turn-down. It's not. It's just that, as Juergen said, we are busy with other stuff that we consider more important. We all only have so much time. Take this as it is: An opportunity to use us as a reviewing facility. After all, we have some expertice in what the perfect spell checker interface should look like, so this might be valuable to you anyway. Let me reiterate that I wish the best for Aspell, because I think it's a superior technology that should prevail. However, I can't volunteer much time to make Aspell the world dominator. Greets, Asger
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 02-Feb-2000 Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > Yes most certanly but I want it to be generic enough that ANY project
> > can use it. I want to use C as it the most portable and will allow pure C
> > projects to use it. Using C++ would defeat the purpose of my goals.
>
> I guess if you have a nice API in your library and it can be included in
> distributions I guess why not use it if it simplifies things! If it is
> more complicated to use then the already working functions, well ...
Well, considering I have bigger goals than LyX it might be a bit more
complicated but it should not be way more complicated. But you will
lose the convinces of C++ and some for efficacy reason you will have
to use pointers to functions for example one of my structure will
be.
typedef struct {
void * data;
const char * (* next) (void * d);
int (* at_end) (void * d);
} Emulation;
Of course you could wright a C++ wrapper for this.
> > I want to develope a small lightweight C library that provides a uniforem
> > interface for accessing spell checkers available on the system. If aspell
> > if available, great, use it. Otherwise use ispell if thats available. If
> > not humm..
>
> Seems nice but probably we would need some API proposal on how you intend
> to make this happen. How can we say YES or NO if we only know there should
> be somewhat, but what ...???
You should get a draft soon. I am trying to get more than the LyX team
involved in this
---
Kevin Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote: [...] > > If this is what you want, you might want to go elsewhere. The LyX > > team is a C++ team, and I think we can admit that we do not have > > the necessary expertice in wrapping C++ in a C setting. > > Its not that difficult and that is NOT what I am looking for. You might like to give it some thought before you get too much further with this plan. I'm subscribed to the gtk-- list and they have plenty difficulties trying to provide C++ wrapping for C simply because C isn't as expressive as C++. In particular they have problems with poor class design and lack of inheritance with gtk+. If you try to design your library in C using OO techniques then you will probably find it becomes considerably less useful and maintainable than if you implemented it as C++ and provided a simple wrapper interface in C. I'm no expert in wrapping code so you might like to consider approaching the KDE and gtk-- teams for suggestions about writing in C++ and providing a thin C wrapper. If you do so you should also include the draft of the spellchecker classes that you came up with last year as a possible interface so they have some idea of what you would be doing. As part of your plan for spell-checker world domination would you be making a library implementation of aspell? If so that might be the best interface to start with since it would be more elaborate than ispell would require. Then you'd only have to figure out how to wrap the C++ with C. It's got to be easier than the reverse. Allan. (ARRae)
Re: Aspell and LyX
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Allan Rae wrote: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > If you try to design your library in C using OO techniques then you will > probably find it becomes considerably less useful and maintainable than if > you implemented it as C++ and provided a simple wrapper interface in C. My code is in C++. The wrapper interface will be in C but it will be a bit more than a wrapper as I want it also to resort to using Ispell if Aspell is not available to increase portability. This is where I want LyX team help. Provide the ispell part. Naturally this wrapper will be a separate library that is not part of aspell and should be small enough that programs that want to use it can include it with there distribution. > I'm no expert in wrapping code so you might like to consider approaching > the KDE and gtk-- teams for suggestions about writing in C++ and providing > a thin C wrapper. If you do so you should also include the draft of the > spellchecker classes that you came up with last year as a possible > interface so they have some idea of what you would be doing. Actually I just sent an email to the g++ mailing list about this > As part of your plan for spell-checker world domination would you be > making a library implementation of aspell? If so that might be the best > interface to start with since it would be more elaborate than ispell would > require. Then you'd only have to figure out how to wrap the C++ with C. > It's got to be easier than the reverse. Um, absolutely. Aspell IS a library, but, it is undocumented because the library is in a constant state of flux. I seam to redesign a major part of it with each new release. I am really hopping things will settle down soon. Sorry if I was massively unclear. --- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a Kevin seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load Kevin and unload the word list before spell checking a specific Kevin document. Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't Kevin plan to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do Kevin spell checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a Kevin seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you Kevin could load and unload the word list each time you change Kevin documents. But them how will you handle having multiple Kevin docvuments visable at once. We had plans for multiple ispell processes, but the reason was rather multi-language documents support. Somewhat related, I guess. Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right the changes the other one made. How do you plan on dealing with this? -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Kevin Atkinson wrote: Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right the changes the other one made. How do you plan on dealing with this? It's probably at least as hard as getting a spell checker to distinguish right from write.
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Garst R. Reese" wrote: Kevin Atkinson wrote: Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right the changes the other one made. How do you plan on dealing with this? It's probably at least as hard as getting a spell checker to distinguish right from write. And your point. Other than the fact that I did not proof read my message enough -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Kevin> Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a > Kevin> seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load > Kevin> and unload the word list before spell checking a specific > Kevin> document. Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't > Kevin> plan to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do > Kevin> spell checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a > Kevin> seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you > Kevin> could load and unload the word list each time you change > Kevin> documents. But them how will you handle having multiple > Kevin> docvuments visable at once. > > We had plans for multiple ispell processes, but the reason was rather > multi-language documents support. Somewhat related, I guess. Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right the changes the other one made. How do you plan on dealing with this? -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause > problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its > personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the > personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right > the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both > processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two > modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two > ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right > the changes the other one made. > > How do you plan on dealing with this? It's probably at least as hard as getting a spell checker to distinguish right from write.
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Garst R. Reese" wrote: > > Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > > Having multiple ispell processes with the same language will cause > > problems with their personal dictionaries because when ispell saves its > > personal dictionary it simply writs the information to disk. If the > > personal dictionary changes sense the process started it will over right > > the changes. This means that if you have two ispell process and in both > > processes the personal dictionary was changed only one of the two > > modified personal dictionaries will be saved to disk because the two > > ispell processes are unaware of each other and will blindly over right > > the changes the other one made. > > > > How do you plan on dealing with this? > It's probably at least as hard as getting a spell checker to distinguish > right from write. And your point. Other than the fact that I did not proof read my message enough -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Kevin Atkinson writes: KA 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so KA that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you KA are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. This is planned, and is also fairly easy to do for ispell. KA 2) Skip over url's, host names, and email addresses. When we have character styles, this will be easier. KA And #1 will requore you store word lists with the document. Will be there in 1.1.x KA So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your KA current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Yes, and this is planned. (help is good) Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Lars Gullik Bjønnes" wrote: Kevin Atkinson writes: KA 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so KA that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you KA are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. This is planned, and is also fairly easy to do for ispell. Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load and unload the word list before spell checking a specific document.Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't plan to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do spell checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you could load and unload the word list each time you change documents. But them how will you handle having multiple docvuments visable at once. Aspell avoids this problem by having detachable dictionaries. Thus you can have multiple Aspell classes which share the main word list. Each of these Aspell classes can also have a separate "ignore all" dictionary. In fact with aspell you can have as many dictionaries as you like. All of them being completely detachable. KA So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your KA current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Yes, and this is planned. (help is good) I will write up a propersal of how I think this should be done to support Aspell to its fullest and also worrk with Ispell for those who don't which to use Aspell in a few days. -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Kevin Atkinson writes: KA Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a KA seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load KA and unload the word list before spell checking a specific KA document. Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't plan KA to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do spell KA checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a KA seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you could KA load and unload the word list each time you change documents. KA But them how will you handle having multiple docvuments visable KA at once. For Ispell we will most likely have to use multiple processes. Note that I said "easy for ispell". I did not say elegant :-) KA Aspell avoids this problem by having detachable dictionaries. KA Thus you can have multiple Aspell classes which share the main KA word list. Each of these Aspell classes can also have a separate KA "ignore all" dictionary. In fact with aspell you can have as KA many dictionaries as you like. All of them being completely KA detachable. This sounds really nice. KA So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your KA current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Until aspell is the defacto speller in the unix world we will need to have an interface to ispell too. and hopefully we will be able to have an abstract intervace to the different spelling processes. KA I will write up a propersal of how I think this should be done KA to support Aspell to its fullest and also worrk with Ispell for KA those who don't which to use Aspell in a few days. For LyX? Nice :-) Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
>> Kevin Atkinson writes: KA> 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so KA> that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you KA> are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. This is planned, and is also fairly easy to do for ispell. KA> 2) Skip over url's, host names, and email addresses. When we have character styles, this will be easier. KA> And #1 will requore you store word lists with the document. Will be there in 1.1.x KA> So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your KA> current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Yes, and this is planned. (help is good) Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Lars Gullik Bjønnes" wrote: > > >> Kevin Atkinson writes: > KA> 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so > KA> that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you > KA> are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. > > This is planned, and is also fairly easy to do for ispell. Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load and unload the word list before spell checking a specific document.Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't plan to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do spell checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you could load and unload the word list each time you change documents. But them how will you handle having multiple docvuments visable at once. Aspell avoids this problem by having detachable dictionaries. Thus you can have multiple Aspell classes which share the main word list. Each of these Aspell classes can also have a separate "ignore all" dictionary. In fact with aspell you can have as many dictionaries as you like. All of them being completely detachable. > KA> So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your > KA> current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. > > Yes, and this is planned. > (help is good) I will write up a propersal of how I think this should be done to support Aspell to its fullest and also worrk with Ispell for those who don't which to use Aspell in a few days. -- Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
>> Kevin Atkinson writes: KA> Ok. But how do you manage multiple documents. Do you have a KA> seperate ispell process for each open document or do you load KA> and unload the word list before spell checking a specific KA> document. Unloading and loading will work fine if you don't plan KA> to do spell checking while you type. If you plan to do spell KA> checking wiile you type you would almost certanly need a KA> seperate process for each open document. Well I guess you could KA> load and unload the word list each time you change documents. KA> But them how will you handle having multiple docvuments visable KA> at once. For Ispell we will most likely have to use multiple processes. Note that I said "easy for ispell". I did not say elegant :-) KA> Aspell avoids this problem by having detachable dictionaries. KA> Thus you can have multiple Aspell classes which share the main KA> word list. Each of these Aspell classes can also have a separate KA> "ignore all" dictionary. In fact with aspell you can have as KA> many dictionaries as you like. All of them being completely KA> detachable. This sounds really nice. KA> So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your KA> current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Until aspell is the defacto speller in the unix world we will need to have an interface to ispell too. and hopefully we will be able to have an abstract intervace to the different spelling processes. KA> I will write up a propersal of how I think this should be done KA> to support Aspell to its fullest and also worrk with Ispell for KA> those who don't which to use Aspell in a few days. For LyX? Nice :-) Lgb
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Hi. There I was wondering if you are still interested in using Kevin Aspell (http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/aspell) as the new LyX Kevin 1.1 spell checker. I would be willing to help you out if you Kevin would point me in the right direction. It could be nice as long as it is optional (IMO). I guess we should have a generic spellchecker interface that is plugged at compile time to either ispell, aspell (library version, I guess) or KSpell (for klyx). However, I think we have to keep the support for plain old ispell. Kevin KSpell is just a fancy interfact to ispell. If Lyx will have Kevin its own spell checker interfacte why use KSpell. Because I guess that it makes sense to KDE users to have the same spellchecker everywhere, with the same defaults. I have to admit that I did not have a look at KSpell, so I do not know what real advantages it brings. Kevin Some of the fancy things you will soon be able to do in aspell Kevin that you can't do (or will be very difficult to do) in ispell. Kevin 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so Kevin that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you Kevin are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. Nice. Kevin 2) Skip over url's, host names, and email addresses. I guess LyX would not feed this to aspell, anyway. However, I do not really see how this can be done safely... By skipping words with .:@ in them? Kevin 3) Intellegenly spell check code and mathematics (aspell will Kevin figure out which words are variable names and skip over them. Kevin See the mailing list archive for how I plan on doing this) ? Kevin 4) Learn from users misspellings Good. Kevin 5) Finally a much better suggestion strategy. Good too. Kevin Your current code will allow aspell to do #5 correctly. Kevin I have submitted code for #4 however it has a few problems. Kevin Aspell can't do #2 because you insist on sending things one Kevin word at a time which breaks up url's and the like. Now that we have an URL inset, it might be less of a problem. Kevin Being able to do #3 will require a prescan of the document with Kevin all the symbols in tack and with out any sort of artificially Kevin breaking up of the text like you currently do. Kevin And #1 will requore you store word lists with the document. This is planned anyway. Kevin So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your Kevin current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Anyway, the spellchecker code needs a major rewrite. By `support', do you mean a pipe-based interface as we have now, or the use of aspell as a library? Kevin Oops ;) A link of the developers page would be really nice. -- It is indeed missing. But people are supposed to come to the normal page first. JMarc
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
Kevin So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your Kevin current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Anyway, the spellchecker code needs a major rewrite. By `support', do you mean a pipe-based interface as we have now, or the use of aspell as a library? Kevin, you are more than welcome to rewrite the spell checking interface in LyX. The requirements are simple to present: All of what the current spell checker can do, and a few other additions: 1) Local words. 2) Easier support for different spell checkers. (on other platforms, such as windows, there is probably a system API for this.) 3) Hide the spell checker communication. Ideally, I'd like to have an interface where we pass a string const of words that we want to spell check, and get a vectorpairstring const , vectorstring const back, where each misspelled word in the string has been mapped to a list of potential replacement words. (The current restriction that we only spell check one word at a time should be lifted, because this is unnecessarily restrictive. For instance, the spell checking interface should also be flexible enough for grammar checking.) All the behind-the-scenes communication with the spell checker should be hidden from the user. If you feel up to it, present a design here, and we can comment on it before you implement it. Greets, Asger
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
> "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kevin> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> > "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Kevin> Hi. There I was wondering if you are still interested in using Kevin> Aspell (http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/aspell) as the new LyX Kevin> 1.1 spell checker. I would be willing to help you out if you Kevin> would point me in the right direction. >> It could be nice as long as it is optional (IMO). I guess we >> should have a generic spellchecker interface that is plugged at >> compile time to either ispell, aspell (library version, I guess) or >> KSpell (for klyx). However, I think we have to keep the support for >> plain old ispell. Kevin> KSpell is just a fancy interfact to ispell. If Lyx will have Kevin> its own spell checker interfacte why use KSpell. Because I guess that it makes sense to KDE users to have the same spellchecker everywhere, with the same defaults. I have to admit that I did not have a look at KSpell, so I do not know what real advantages it brings. Kevin> Some of the fancy things you will soon be able to do in aspell Kevin> that you can't do (or will be very difficult to do) in ispell. Kevin> 1) Have a diffrent "ignore all" word list for each document so Kevin> that you won't keep aving to press ignore for special words you Kevin> are not willing to insert into you personal dictiionares. Nice. Kevin> 2) Skip over url's, host names, and email addresses. I guess LyX would not feed this to aspell, anyway. However, I do not really see how this can be done safely... By skipping words with .:@ in them? Kevin> 3) Intellegenly spell check code and mathematics (aspell will Kevin> figure out which words are variable names and skip over them. Kevin> See the mailing list archive for how I plan on doing this) ? Kevin> 4) Learn from users misspellings Good. Kevin> 5) Finally a much better suggestion strategy. Good too. Kevin> Your current code will allow aspell to do #5 correctly. Kevin> I have submitted code for #4 however it has a few problems. Kevin> Aspell can't do #2 because you insist on sending things one Kevin> word at a time which breaks up url's and the like. Now that we have an URL inset, it might be less of a problem. Kevin> Being able to do #3 will require a prescan of the document with Kevin> all the symbols in tack and with out any sort of artificially Kevin> breaking up of the text like you currently do. Kevin> And #1 will requore you store word lists with the document. This is planned anyway. Kevin> So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your Kevin> current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. Anyway, the spellchecker code needs a major rewrite. By `support', do you mean a pipe-based interface as we have now, or the use of aspell as a library? Kevin> Oops ;) A link of the developers page would be really nice. -- It is indeed missing. But people are supposed to come to the normal page first. JMarc
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
> Kevin> So basically in order to support Aspell in the fullest your > Kevin> current spell checker code will require a major rewrite. > > Anyway, the spellchecker code needs a major rewrite. By `support', do > you mean a pipe-based interface as we have now, or the use of aspell > as a library? Kevin, you are more than welcome to rewrite the spell checking interface in LyX. The requirements are simple to present: All of what the current spell checker can do, and a few other additions: 1) Local words. 2) Easier support for different spell checkers. (on other platforms, such as windows, there is probably a system API for this.) 3) Hide the spell checker communication. Ideally, I'd like to have an interface where we pass a string const & of words that we want to spell check, and get a vectorback, where each misspelled word in the string has been mapped to a list of potential replacement words. (The current restriction that we only spell check one word at a time should be lifted, because this is unnecessarily restrictive. For instance, the spell checking interface should also be flexible enough for grammar checking.) All the behind-the-scenes communication with the spell checker should be hidden from the user. If you feel up to it, present a design here, and we can comment on it before you implement it. Greets, Asger
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
"Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Hi. There I was wondering if you are still interested in using Kevin Aspell (http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/aspell) as the new LyX Kevin 1.1 spell checker. I would be willing to help you out if you Kevin would point me in the right direction. It could be nice as long as it is optional (IMO). I guess we should have a generic spellchecker interface that is plugged at compile time to either ispell, aspell (library version, I guess) or KSpell (for klyx). However, I think we have to keep the support for plain old ispell. Kevin The reason I ask is because I would like Aspell to incorporated Kevin in at least one large project before I am conferrable with Kevin realizing it to version 1.0. Kevin The interface is still is a current state of flux however it Kevin should stabilize soon. Good. Kevin Early feed back on what sort of things you are looking for Kevin would be more than appreciated. I don't really know. Maybe Asger has more ideas. There were some nifty ideas later a bout a new user interface, but I do not know what happened to it. Kevin PS: Could some one subscribe me to this list. I can't find any Kevin subscription information on your web page. I think it is better that you do it yourself: http://www.lyx.org/mailing.html JMarc
Re: Aspell and LyX 1.1
> "Kevin" == Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kevin> Hi. There I was wondering if you are still interested in using Kevin> Aspell (http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/aspell) as the new LyX Kevin> 1.1 spell checker. I would be willing to help you out if you Kevin> would point me in the right direction. It could be nice as long as it is optional (IMO). I guess we should have a generic spellchecker interface that is plugged at compile time to either ispell, aspell (library version, I guess) or KSpell (for klyx). However, I think we have to keep the support for plain old ispell. Kevin> The reason I ask is because I would like Aspell to incorporated Kevin> in at least one large project before I am conferrable with Kevin> realizing it to version 1.0. Kevin> The interface is still is a current state of flux however it Kevin> should stabilize soon. Good. Kevin> Early feed back on what sort of things you are looking for Kevin> would be more than appreciated. I don't really know. Maybe Asger has more ideas. There were some nifty ideas later a bout a new user interface, but I do not know what happened to it. Kevin> PS: Could some one subscribe me to this list. I can't find any Kevin> subscription information on your web page. I think it is better that you do it yourself: http://www.lyx.org/mailing.html JMarc
