Your note convinced me that this is definitely the way to go. So I just
checked in my part of the puzzle. I'll let you and Stephen divide up the
remaining work. :-)
At 02:05 PM 10/21/99 -0500, Justin Bradford wrote:
>I haven't dug through the squiggle code quite enough to know it's current
>implementation, but I think a flag on the specific squiggle might work in
>combination with a dirty-word squiggle updater. So, you ignore a specific
>word, and it's corresponding squiggle's flag, bIgnore, gets set. When the
>squiggle's are drawn, obviously this one is not. Likewise, when evaluating
>the current context, this word is considered squiggleless. Then, when this
>region is dirtied due to editing, it reevaluates whether the squiggle, and
>clears this flag (if it's still misspelled, obviously). This would have
>the effect of adding a space to an ignored word, then removing said space,
>and the "new" word, while the same as the original, would now be
>considered misspelled, and thus squiggled-- which is exactly how Word
>works.
>
>Additionally, if I modified the dialog-based spell checking algorithm to
>iterate through squiggles, rather than the whole document again, it gives
>two additional benefits: 1) we don't have to look-up words again, they're
>already marked, 2) if a squiggled word has bIgnore set, I'll just skip
>over it, so that ignored words don't show up every time you spell check
>(which is how Word workds).
>
>This implies always squiggling text in the background (but just not
>always showing the squiggles).
>
>> Hmm. You mean they slow down editing to do the check, and then don't show
>> the results except via that icon? (Sounds like strategy #2 above.)
>
>Yeah, with squiggles always around we could do things like status bar
>icons/messages.
It took me a long time to figure out what that icon meant, and I'm still not
sure I *like* it, but I understand why others might, and I do like being
able to do it.
>> PS: This reminds me that we need to finish that old rewrite of the
>> autospell code so that it just checks dirty words in response to editing,
>> instead of doing the full destructive block-level recheck for each atomic
>> edit.
>
>This is sort of key to everything I've suggested above. Also, while the
>squiggle code is being updated, it might be worthwhile trying to figure
>out how to not squiggle new words before they're finished being typed.
Done.
Paul