??? 04/09/08 19:59 Read: times |
#153085 - Where spell-checking could be useful Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
... programs are not written with spelling and syntax that's detecable by a spell-checking algorithm useable for checking standard English prose. But the comments should be. It shouldn't be difficult to build a "programmer's" spell checker that would check only comment text. It would, of course, still be subject to all the usual limitations of spell checkers - and would face some extra difficulties due to the nature of source code comments... Once you've checked and verified and subsequently tabulated all of them [function/variable/label names], you can't automate the process OF course you can! Compilers (and assemblers) generate synbol tables - so it wouldn't be hard to apply a spelling checker to these... There would be some value in spell-checking these symbols - I've seen several cases of typos in symbols. In fact, only the other day I was searching for a variable and couldn't find it because there was a typo in the name! |
Topic | Author | Date |
Spell check using Keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What exactly are you spell checking for? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Well... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Danger of spell checking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
wow that's interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Oops! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Oh ... for the good old days ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Another Oops! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
True enough ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not the case for me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Where spell-checking could be useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree entirely... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
the problem with spellcheckers is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Spellcheckeritis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
sure, I do it all te time .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
We all screw up from time to time, but ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Useful spell checking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
be creative! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
To be fair... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |