Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3BFA6601.261DC9D6@ieee.org> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:17:37 -0500 From: "Pierre A. Humblet" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: spell & ispell References: <20011119221832 DOT E1876 AT dothill DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Given the various feedback it looks like ispell is really getting obsolete. Yet it doesn't make sense to me to introduce separate aspell and pspell packages as they are slated to merge. Thus I won't do anything :) Pierre Jason Tishler wrote: > > Pierre, > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:33:29PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I don't disagree. Although I am not a user of aspell, it looks like "it" > > (see * below) will eventually replace ispell. However I have no experience > > with it and looking at its home page http://aspell.sourceforge.net it doesn't > > seem to be stable. I'd rather not take responsibility for it at this point. > > I can understand you reluctance, but I have been using aspell/pspell > as an ispell replacement for almost a year now. My experience is that > it builds OOTB, works *much* better than ispell, easily drops in as an > ispell replacement, and has caused me no grief at all. >