Re: spell checker
by mikfire (Deacon) on May 02, 2001 at 19:31 UTC
|
I would rather have something
that ran anything between <code> tags through a perl -c :)
I figure most people will excuse a few misspellings, but
I hate embarrassing myself by making stupid syntax errors
in the code.
mikfire | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Hey! I judge people on their abilty to spell, making a
spell checker would be baaad. Unless it issued a summary
of the number of spelling mistakes and highlighted them in
red, and didn't let you change them. ;o) But even then,
you couldn't interfudgificate words without the spell checker
flagging it.
As for the bad code high-lighter, this is an excellent idea,
if only for newbie posters, especially when the post is:
"why doesn't my code compile" ;o). There are flaws when code
tags are used to wrap text that might usually be written
using pre tags.
Also what do you do for folk like AgentM and his pedantry
and his incistance that
American-english is the right thing for the web?
--
Brother Frankus.¤
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
frankus wrote:
I judge people on their abilty to spell...
I trust you're kidding when you say that. To be fair, I have the same tendency, but I realized that when I type things in this little white box, I'm often in a hurry and I don't always double-check my speeling (sic).
That being said, aside from words that you appeared to deliberately misspell (baaad) or invented (interfudgificate), I noticed that you wrote 'incistance' instead of 'insistence'. I have passed judgment and find you guilty :)
Cheers,
Ovid
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: spell checker
by footpad (Abbot) on May 02, 2001 at 22:34 UTC
|
Um, why not simply compose messages offline using a text editor sporting such a beast? Indeed, there are many that let you customize the spelling processor so that it would accept "normal" English (whatever that is), common TLA's, and code.
Alternatively, you could write such a thing, host on your servers, and perhaps even upload the source as a CUFP.
--f
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
There are some who advocate going a step further, by putting
their editor
online and getting rid of the browser...
/duck
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: spell checker
by iamnothing (Friar) on May 02, 2001 at 20:19 UTC
|
The only way I'd really like to see a spell checker on this (or any other programming site) would be if it ignored anything between code segments. Otherwise, you'd have to scroll through countless "mispellings" to post it. Not to mention the longer the posted script (really, what spell checker is going to know $_ unless it's added manually?) the more time the server would take trying to parse supposed errors.
If it excluded code blocks, it'd be okay, though. I usually try to check myself during preview anyway. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: spell checker
by thabenksta (Pilgrim) on May 02, 2001 at 20:39 UTC
|
I was thinking about this today also, becuase I have horrible spelling. But then I thought, I hate online spell checkers, like the hotmail one, that is just a pain. It's just as easy to copy your text over to a word processor and paste it back. Or learn how to spell.
-thabenksta
my $name = 'Ben Kittrell';
$name=~s/^(.+)\s(.).+$/\L$1$2/g;
my $nick = 'tha' . $name . 'sta';
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
Re: spell checker
by lindex (Friar) on May 02, 2001 at 21:42 UTC
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
(jptxs) Re: spell checker
by jptxs (Curate) on May 02, 2001 at 23:14 UTC
|
"A man's maturity -- consists in having found again the
seriousness one had as a child, at play." --Nietzsche
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |