On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 18:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Reuben Thomas > > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:27:32 +0000 > > Cc: 44318@debbugs.gnu.org, dinkonin > > > > I think it would be wrong for Emacs to do that, as that would put all > > the eggs in a single basket, something that is not safe in Free > > Software world, where packages become unmaintained outside of our > > control. > > > > I don't understand this: Emacs, to this day, is happy to import large > quantities of code from other project; let > > alone the option of forking/maintaining free software, which is one of > its great benefits. And because > > Enchant has such a similar interface to the other supported > spell-checkers, the cost of switching is low. For > > myself, I'd be more concerned with bugs or missing functionality in > Enchant as a reason to be cautious (i.e. > > I would want to see a phased transition) than about the long-term > prospects. > > We are miscommunicating. My point is that if Emacs will depend on > Enchant and won't be able to use the existing spellers without Enchant > being in-between, then we will be in a dire situation if Enchant stops > being developed and bit-rots. By contrast, with the current code, we > can always tell users to use aspell/hunspell directly. > What I was trying to say is that it would be very easy to re-add support for the other spell-checkers, since they and Enchant operate in the same way, and they would not have changed in the mean time. There is little to rot in Enchant, I intend to reduce that amount, and in the end it should be less effort to maintain Enchant than to maintain multiple back-ends in ispell.el. -- https://rrt.sc3d.org