This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: spell & ispell
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:51:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: spell & ispell
- References: <3BF95449.ADA7E708@ieee.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
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 :)
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
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.