> May I suggest that, instead of posting a jumbo patch, you post a list
> of problems you see with important details and aspects of
> spell-checking, as they are currently documented (or not documented)
> in the manual, and we could then discuss these one by one and decide
> whether and how each one of them should be fixed?  If nothing else, it
> will allow us to discuss the problems first, rather than start from a
> full-blown solution.

I never thought about this patch as "jumbo". As you said, it's just 250
lines, less than a single function of ispell.el (ispell-command-loop is
279 lines, ispell-region is 153 lines), and is less than 5% of
ispell.el+flyspell.el, which are 4345+2411=6756 lines long (5096 without
comments and empty lines).

After all, the whole documentation to Elisp ratio for Emacs is

find lisp -iname '*.el' -exec cat {} + | \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^;' | \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^$' | wc -l
1671287

find doc -iname '*.texi' -exec cat {} + | \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^%' |  \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^$' | wc -l
354929

echo '354929/1671287' | bc -l
.21

So, roughly speaking ispell.el's documentation is 4 times terser than
Emacs' on average.

Even if you add all of the C code (which is much sparser documented)
without removing comments:

find src lisp \( -iname '*.el' -or -iname '*.c' \) -exec cat {} + | \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^;' | \
  grep --binary-files=text -v '^$' | wc -l
2110316

echo '354929/2110316' | bc -l
.16

This is still three times more elaborate and detailed than the spelling
documentation in fixit.texi


-- 
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)