Replies: 14 comments
-
Do you have an example about the solution you suggest, because I'm unsure to understand what you are suggesting, but also maybe the problem you are trying to fix |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Turning off See also image above. The main difference is that it would be controllable from file to file based upon configuration and even within a file by using directives within the file. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It's clearer now. Maybe "strict" might not be the best choice, then. Because this term is already used for accent and case checking
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Maybe |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Wording is always a real pain 😅 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Very good point. Thinking out loud. This option will:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think you were somehow asking for help in terms of wording. Here are the few that came to my mind:
Things like that, but I'm not the best with wording ideas My suggestion is made on the fact, it will change almost nothing expect for unrecognized words |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Now I understand what you wanted to achieve, I can tell you that is exactly what led me to prefer I love cspell, but as the logic is "not in the list then failure", it prevented me to use it in CI. I keep using it manually when I want to make sure nothing was left behind by typos or codespell. So this feature would be very appreciated, yes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thank you for the suggestions. Some other ideas.
Even though something like |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think it would lead to have too many parameters. Someone may find Maybe a better approach would be to use one parameter that will try to mitigate everything something like
where so there would be only one parameter and not 2. I dislike
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Wordings is always a pain I think I shared my thoughts, and your suggestions are good. But maybe it's now time to ask for other people to look at the discussion. Discussing something as important as this with one person only may lead to issues. I'm a random guy, my point of view matter as much as an other people who have interest in this project. I would say we could wait. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks for converting this to a discussion |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Problem
One common frustration of CSpell users is that it flags variable names and imported libraries, when they are just wanting the spell checker to look for common spelling mistakes. A "Typos" mode would tell the spell checker to be less
strict
. To only mark issues that are clear mistakes or are in the list of words to be flagged.Solution
strict
, which istrue
by default.true
- the current behavior - all unknown words are marked as errors.false
- only common spelling issues and flagged words will be marked as errors.strict
mode within a document.Alternatives
The other alternative is to provide more control over the parts of a document that is checked by parsing the document and tagging sections (i.e.
string
,variable
,comment
) and allowing the user to enable checking.Note: this proposal can be used in conjunction with parsing.
Additional Context
Code of Conduct
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions