GNU bug report logs - #44675
guix lint: support for spellchecker or basic grammar

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
To: Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
Cc: 44675 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#44675: guix lint: support for spellchecker or basic grammar
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:43:17 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2021-04-25, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:10:40PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> Control: tags 44675 +patch
>> 
>> On 2020-11-15, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> > Please consider a guix lint description/synopsis check for basic
>> > spelling, typo and rudimentary grammar issues.
>> ...
>> > Many of these are likely to be caught by most spell checking routines;
>> > I'm not sure if there is anything that would be implementable in pure
>> > guile, or it if would make sense to call out to an external
>> > spellchecker.
>> >
>> > Some of them might be harder, and obviously we do not want too many
>> > false positives, but no need to get perfectionist on solving this; even
>> > just checking for "This packages" would haved detected many of these
>> > issues!
>> 
>> In the attached patch, I've implemented a simple lint check for "This
>> packages", which has been fixed in ... 42 packages so far in the git
>> repository, so maybe this could help catch future ones!
>> 
>> I haven't implemented a more complicated spellchecker or grammar checker
>> or anything, but at least this is a start.
>> 
>> I think it is also within my skills to address "allows to" and "permits
>> to", if I'm not heading down the wrong path here...
>> 
>> 
>> live well,
>>   vagrant
>
> It might make more sense to name it something more like
> 'catch-common-typos' and to search for 'This packages', 'allows to',
> 'permits to', 'file-name' and then print out the different mistakes in
> the description. Then we can add more as we find them, rather than one
> check per mistake.

That makes sense, though 'This packages' is very straightforward and has
a simple recommendation to fix it, whereas 'allows to' requires more
complicated english skills to come up with the correct solution... it
could just simply flag those cases as "wrong" without a solution.

Basically, I already stretched my cargo-culting, er, guile skills just
to get something obvious fixed that I keep seeing over and over
again. It would be a good excercise for me to better learn guile to
extend to further typos, though ... limited time.

Playing whack-a-mole with typos does get tiring :)


live well,
  vagrant

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.