[Dict-common-dev] pspell, pspell-ispell, aspell and dictionaries-common

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Agustín Martín Domingo <agmartin@aq.upm.es> [2002-06-07 13:10]:

> No entry also does not work, you need to put exactly one of those 
> entries, otherwise will fail too,
> 
> (debian-ispell-add-dictionary-entry
>   '("american"
>     "[A-Za-z]"
>     "[^A-Za-z]"
>     "[']"
>     nil
>     ("-B")
>     nil
>     nil)
>   "american")
> 
> will give an error
> 
>   [...]

Sorry, I was not very clear.  My proposal was to test if "Coding-System" is
one of the allowed ones and, if not, then suppress the whole
debian-ispell-add-dictionary-entry for that dictionary.  

> Domenico, how critical is for pspell-ispell naming the charset as 
> iso8859-1 or iso-8859-1?. Do we have a list of allowed charset names for 
> pspell-ispell to try some mapping? Otherwise we can always use something 
> like a 'Pspell-ispell:' two elements field in the info file:
> 
> Pspell-ispell:sv iso8859-1
> 
> without any sort of mapping.

That is a better way to cope with the issue because, at any rate, the
maintainer will have to supply the parts of the name of the pwli file.

> One more thing we should also consider when doing that, two different 
> info-ispell definitions can correspond to a unique hash (e.g. castellano 
> and castellano8) giving different emacs entries, so one possibility os 
> to allow some definitions not having a pspell field. Although this is 
> probably not a problem if there are pspell fields in the two entries, 
> since the later pspell-ispell file will overwrite the previous one with 
> the same info.

Right.  If we adopt the "Pspell-ispell" field as above, then the problem
disappears.

-- 
Rafael