|
From: | Jim Porter |
Subject: | bug#62677: 30.0.50; Need to find a better name for flyspell-prog-mode |
Date: | Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:46:13 -0700 |
On 4/5/2023 11:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 13:29:59 -0700 From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> On 4/5/2023 6:13 AM, Michael Heerdegen wrote:`flyspell-prog-mode' is a variant of `flyspell-mode' for editing programs: it limits spell checking to areas of text fontified with certain faces (`flyspell-prog-text-faces', normally strings and comments). The intention is obviously to skip keywords and tags that are used by the programming language itself.For what it's worth, when I started using flyspell-mode last year and subsequently discovered flyspell-prog-mode, I immediately understood what its intent was from the name. So from my perspective, it's actually a very good name.That depends on what you understood ;-) It could be that you understood it immediately, but incorrectly or inaccurately.
To be clear, my understanding was that 'flyspell-prog-mode' is what you should use for modes where some text should be ignored for spell-checking. (Code is the most obvious example, but not the only one.)
This mode is geared toward text modes. In buffers that contain code, ‘flyspell-prog-mode’ is usually a better choice.The above is inaccurate as well: text-derived modes for markup text can also benefit. Basically, anything where you have keywords that are not necessarily words in a human language.
Maybe something like this would be more-precise?"This mode spell checks all the text in a buffer. In buffers that contain text that shouldn't be spell-checked (such as code or markup), 'flyspell-prog-mode' is usually a better choice."
Then, we could expand on the docstring for 'flyspell-prog-mode', since it's pretty short right now.
IMO, we should start with what the manual says: Flyspell Prog mode works just like ordinary Flyspell mode, except that it only checks words in comments and string constants. This feature is useful for editing programs. Which might try to explain the name, but in doing so, it misses the opportunity to let the readers discover what that mode truly is and what it can do.
Yeah, this could probably use a bit of expansion too. It does a reasonable job of explaining why you'd use it in a programming mode, but that's (arguably) already obvious from the name.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |