| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hfrmobile |
Posted - Nov 14 2010 : 2:17:35 PM
Since I'd like to convince my new employer starting using VA I re-started evaluating VA under VS2005 for C++ only.
One of the advantages (compared to ReSharper) is that it comes with a spell checker!
We'd like to have some more options for the spell checker:
See also:
- http://docs.wholetomato.com?W199
- http://forum.wholetomato.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9850 |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| feline |
Posted - Apr 11 2015 : 11:21:04 PM
Thank you for the update, hopefully you are not seeing any other problems with VA's spell checker. |
| pwc |
Posted - Apr 10 2015 : 3:22:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by feline
pwc, are you seeing all upper case words being underlined as spelling errors? Since this is not happening for me.
As for camel case words, I have just added the following comment to a cpp file:
// checkingCamelCaseWords in this comment block
// to see what errorrs are underlined by VA
and the only word being underlined is "errorrs".
Feline, sorry for the late reply. It works as you describe. I'm using 2059 these days.
|
| feline |
Posted - Oct 08 2014 : 7:22:30 PM
This is not currently planned, but it is an interesting thought. Most users never need to edit this file, or even know it exists. As for the file not being in the project, that is deliberate, to make sure that anything you put there is never considered by the compiler, since the file only exists to help VA's parser, and is not actually a part of your solution.
While I personally like the idea of the button, I am not sure this is a good idea, since most of the time you should never edit this file, and I don't want to encourage random editing just to see what happens, which is more likely with this button in the options dialog. |
| foxmuldr |
Posted - Oct 08 2014 : 2:20:13 PM
And you'll be adding an option to your settings dialog to edit current project's va_stdafx.h directly so I don't have to go fishing for this file manually since it's not in my project? :-) |
| feline |
Posted - Oct 08 2014 : 2:06:56 PM
This makes sense, and actually what you want is a project specific list of words not to underline with the spell checker. This is actually already possible, if you think about symbols. VA does not underline known symbols in your comments, so we just need to tell VA that these words are symbols.
To avoid adding anything to your code, please create a new, empty txt file called "va_stdafx.h" and place it next to the SLN or one of the VCXPROJ files for your project. Now edit the file and add lines like this:
#define spellll
#define projejct
obviously using the words you don't want spell checked in this project, and make sure the file ends with a blank line. There is no need to add the file to the solution, VA searches for this file automatically. Now just press the button:
VA Options -> Performance -> Rebuild symbol databases
and restart your IDE for this to take effect. I have tested this here, and this is working as expected, the words listed like this are no longer underlined as spelling errors, but other spelling errors are underlined normally. |
| foxmuldr |
Posted - Oct 08 2014 : 11:45:42 AM
feline, because there are times I open project XYZ that has some peculiar language in it that I don't need to permanently add to the dictionary, but there exists within phrases that will be seen/used throughout that project. They will never appear in another project and if those same words were to appear in other places, I would want them to be highlighted as a possible error as they only relate to the one project. |
| feline |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 11:49:42 PM
pwc, are you seeing all upper case words being underlined as spelling errors? Since this is not happening for me.
As for camel case words, I have just added the following comment to a cpp file:
// checkingCamelCaseWords in this comment block
// to see what errorrs are underlined by VA
and the only word being underlined is "errorrs".
foxmuldr this is an interesting idea, but why are you avoiding adding common unknown words to the dictionary file? I see the logic, but I am not sure this would get looked at any time soon. |
| foxmuldr |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 11:40:41 AM
How about a "Soft highlight on oft-misspelled words" (so the "right-click add to dictionary" isn't required)? Such words wouldn't show up with misspelled underlining, but rather only maybe the first letter of each shows, that way it's not so overt, but there is still a visible cue.
This would allow words which may not need to be permanently added to the dictionary to still be reasonably ignored and less glaring/loud. A threshold instance count would be nice there as well (defaulted to 5, meaning there must be five of the same mispelled words before they enter into soft highlighting. Four or less and they're highlighted like normal).
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
|
| pwc |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 11:06:20 AM
Another vote to ignore upper case words in the spell checker. It would be nice to have the option to ignore camel case words too since comments will often times contain code. |
| hfrmobile |
Posted - Mar 18 2011 : 06:06:05 AM
Thank you for the information! I'll try to be patient and continue waiting for it :-) |
| feline |
Posted - Mar 17 2011 : 10:48:37 PM
We are hoping to look at this relatively soon, but there are quite a few feature requests to consider, so deciding which ones to do next is not always clear cut. |
| hfrmobile |
Posted - Mar 17 2011 : 11:26:38 AM
quote:
We are considering a per-solution UserWords file:
case=23367
Any chance to get this in next builds? Currently working on a project where this would be very useful:
//<age_mode>
s_temp = PGT::ToLower( pxe_section->FirstChildElement( "age_mode" )->GetChildValueUNICODE() );
if( s_temp == L"lastmodified" )
me_ageMode = c_agemode_LastModified;
else if( s_temp == L"lastreplication" )
me_ageMode = c_agemode_LastReplication;
else
me_ageMode = c_agemode_none;
At the moment I have to add "lastmodified" and "lastreplication" to the machine wide UserWords file.
quote:
Originally posted by feline
This is a good argument in favour of a solution wide spell check, I have put in a feature request to see what our developers make of this:
case=53164
Thanks! |
| feline |
Posted - Dec 10 2010 : 7:16:16 PM
This is a good argument in favour of a solution wide spell check, I have put in a feature request to see what our developers make of this:
case=53164 |
| hfrmobile |
Posted - Dec 05 2010 : 3:53:57 PM
Thanks a lot for considering adding spell checker features!
Solution wide spell check: Yes and No. This feature would be helpful for large and maybe legacy projects and also for existing projects it would be helpful to do a solution wide check from time to time since not all developers will do it and for the lead developer it would be helpful to do this for the whole solution rather than opening each file and do the spell check
Ignore spell checker through comment: For code like
int a = GetSetting("SpecialTextNotOccurInUserDic", a, b, c);
int b = GetSetting("AnotherSpecialTextNotOccurInUserDic", a, b, c);
etc.
But if it will be possible to use a per-solution UserWords it isn't very important ... |
| feline |
Posted - Nov 15 2010 : 3:38:32 PM
We are considering separate settings for string and comment spelling errors, so I have put a note onto this case about giving these separate colours:
case=30007
We are considering a per-solution UserWords file:
case=23367
Ignoring upper case words makes sense, I have put in a feature request for this:
case=52311
I am not sure about a solution wide spell check. I do see the appeal, but I am not sure how useful this would really be. It sounds like the sort of thing you use once, and then forget about.
Why do you want to ignore spell checking in certain comments? Again I am wondering how widely used this would end up being. |
