mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #199938 24/05/08 02:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,012
R
RoCk Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,012

a seplkelcehcr is not ralely nedeed bsaceue we all hvae a shlcecelpker bilut rhgit idsine of our haeds ... it is mroe tahn jsut a hat rcak.

Re: Spell Check [Re: RoCk] #199943 24/05/08 05:18 PM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559
H
Horstl Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
H
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559
This reminds me of:
Code:
alias mixit {
  var %input = $strip($1-), %nr = 1
  if (%input) {
    while ($gettok(%input,%nr,32)) {
      var %tok = $v1
      if ($len(%tok) > 3) { 
        var %mid = $left($mid(%tok,2),-1), %done, %new
        while ($numtok(%done,32) < $len(%mid)) {
          var %char = $rand(1,$len(%mid))
          if (!$istok(%done,%char,32)) { var %done = %done %char, %new = $+(%new,$mid(%mid,%char,1)) } 
        }
        var %tok = $+($left(%tok,1),%new,$right(%tok,1))
      }
      var %out = %out %tok
      inc %nr
    }
    if ($isid) { return %out }
    elseif ($me ison $active) { msg $v2 %out }
  }
}

Now seriously: Besides the arguments against implementing a spell checker already pointed out, especially by Kelder and Mentality, playful 'misspelling' and 'creative writing' is imho a basic part of chat culture. To me, it's part of the charm of the little funny thing called IRC. Is there an event more boring than a flawless one?

Re: Spell Check [Re: Jundas] #199987 25/05/08 01:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
@symphony: sort of, except that doesn't use aspell.

@RoCk: Yes we've all seen, and know about that "rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy".

@Horstl: Arguing that a spell checker isn't needed is stupid, as people want it. It's just a question of who, when and how.

I don't think a spell checker needs to be added into mIRC (even though other clients have them built in). A decent add-on is sufficient.

I've provided the "how", it's now just a question of making aspell usable with mIRC's $dll. So it's now just a question of who and when.

Anyone good with C/C++ and understand mIRC dlls? *grin*

Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #199997 25/05/08 03:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,012
R
RoCk Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,012

@HM2K: I wasn't trying to educate anyone.

Originally Posted By: HM2K

Arguing that a spell checker isn't needed is stupid, as people want it.


There will almost always be opposition to feature suggestions. It's expected and needed. Saying that arguing against a feature suggestion is stupid, is a stupid statement.

Re: Spell Check [Re: RoCk] #199999 25/05/08 05:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
Originally Posted By: RoCk

There will almost always be opposition to feature suggestions. It's expected and needed. Saying that arguing against a feature suggestion is stupid, is a stupid statement.


Of course not. You can't argue that people don't need or want it, because people are asking for it.

The argument shouldn't be whether it's needed or not, we know people want it, it's a question of how it's going to be implemented.

ie: It does not need to be a feature of mIRC because... it can be done as an optional addon.

Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #200001 25/05/08 07:26 PM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559
H
Horstl Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
H
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted By: HM2K
@Horstl: Arguing that a spell checker isn't needed is stupid, as people want it. It's just a question of who, when and how.
For my part, I did not argue; arguments akin/alike to those I'd bring forward have already been given (i.e. by the users I mentioned). I added an opinion.
Now, you're turning not against my pov but the argumentation of these users with... well: no argument on your part, but an opinion ("is stupid") followed by an assertion ("as people want it") without evidence or reasoning - to me, this is a spurious argument or no argument at all.

Please, return to a more constructive discussion...

Re: Spell Check [Re: Horstl] #200005 25/05/08 10:15 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
Bold or no bold, you're arguing.

Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #200006 25/05/08 10:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Argument or no argument, the last few posts have been pointless.

Khaled knows about the benefits of adding spell checking- he also knows about the difficulties in implementing it. Ultimately he will decide if it's worth the effort. He surely already has. He might revisit the issue sometime down the road. But if you want to implement it yourself you need not have a discussion about it here.. just go do it and come back when it's done.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: Spell Check [Re: argv0] #200026 26/05/08 09:43 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
My point of being on this thread was to recruit assistance.

Last edited by HM2K; 26/05/08 09:45 AM.
Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #200027 26/05/08 09:50 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Perhaps a better place would be a devoted thread in the Developer Forum, then. That would keep the intentions more clear.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: Spell Check [Re: argv0] #200028 26/05/08 09:52 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
Unfortunately I don't have the authority to move this thread...

Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #200029 26/05/08 09:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
You don't need to move this thread. You just need to start a new one. This thread is for a feature suggestion in mIRC, it doesn't need to be moved anyway.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: Spell Check [Re: argv0] #200033 26/05/08 10:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80
H
HM2K Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
H
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 80

Re: Spell Check [Re: HM2K] #206357 13/11/08 06:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
D
DGMurdockIII Offline
Self-satisified door
Offline
Self-satisified door
D
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
i would love to have a spellchecker in mirc

Re: Spell Check [Re: DGMurdockIII] #206362 13/11/08 07:00 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 62
_
_Memo Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
_
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 62
I wouldn't mind a non-invasive in-line spellchecker, much like here in this comment box that Firefox is providing me. "spellchecker" isn't a known word, so it underlines it red. Many applications use such an approach.

I think user locale, options to change or include multiple locales, wouldn't encumber many users. If "lmao" was underlined, big deal? It's NOT a word or an abbreviation for 99% of dictionaries. Solution? Allow users to load standards following dictionary databases, override words, use a priority ranking system when using multiple databases, and etc.

I, however, wouldn't like an in-line spellchecker that offered suggestions! But if I'm spelling "separate" as "seperate" I certainly wouldn't mind it underlining the unrecognized word.

Re: Spell Check [Re: _Memo] #206433 15/11/08 06:03 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
I guess your definition of invasive is a little more relaxed than mine. I find underlining words in red to be heavily invasive, especially given that a good 95% of conversations I've seen on IRC (purposefully) involve words/spellings that would never be found in a dictionary. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 1 or 2 occasions *per line* that would flag a spell checker (think 'id', 'youre', 'hes', all the obvious 'lol' stuff, and then all the geek conversations I have that involve file paths, acronyms, math formulas and plenty of code snippets <- this is typical of IRC conversations, imho). That's a lot of red underlines to be looking at. I'd rather not spend my time adding words to a dictionary when I could easily just be ignoring intentional mistakes.

Now of course some people might actually find this useful. I have a good feeling that the percentage is quite low. All I can hope is that it would not be a headache to implement should K decide to do so, should definitely *not* make "suggestions", and should definitely disable-able (because that's the first thing many would want to do).


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: Spell Check [Re: argv0] #206661 20/11/08 04:35 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 333
foshizzle Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 333
just on a side note
man, lol, this is a funny topic laugh


This is not the signature you are looking for
Re: Spell Check [Re: Soul_Eater] #207476 18/12/08 10:29 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Watchdog Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
It's also not a gaming system, yet people make games for it. They also make 'notepads', and mp3 players, when its an IRC client.


Yeah, "people do", these functions are not built into mIRC and nor should they be. /splay is different - it doesn't require Megabytes of dictionary files and nor does it do anything but kick WMP in the guts.

UPDATE: Good Lord, I just realised how old this thread is... mad

Last edited by Watchdog; 18/12/08 10:31 AM.
Re: Spell Check [Re: Jundas] #214178 21/07/09 07:50 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
D
DGMurdockIII Offline
Self-satisified door
Offline
Self-satisified door
D
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
this would be great

Re: Spell Check [Re: argv0] #214271 27/07/09 04:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 342
M
MeStinkBAD Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
M
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 342
Originally Posted By: argv0
I guess your definition of invasive is a little more relaxed than mine. I find underlining words in red to be heavily invasive, especially given that a good 95% of conversations I've seen on IRC (purposefully) involve words/spellings that would never be found in a dictionary. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 1 or 2 occasions *per line* that would flag a spell checker (think 'id', 'youre', 'hes', all the obvious 'lol' stuff, and then all the geek conversations I have that involve file paths, acronyms, math formulas and plenty of code snippets <- this is typical of IRC conversations, imho). That's a lot of red underlines to be looking at. I'd rather not spend my time adding words to a dictionary when I could easily just be ignoring intentional mistakes.


Grow the f**k up argv... (hey look argv is non-invasively underlined). Just please stop camping in these forums spouting that every suggestion that comes along is *bad* and *unless* etc. I am sick of hearing it. I assume lot's of others are too.
You don't offer any real insight into things (much like this rant). But you have become a painful thorn in my side when viewing these forums. Blah blah I'll end this here... as this thread has possibly become off topic because of me... good now i'm mad at myself too. lol.


Beware of MeStinkBAD! He knows more than he actually does!
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4