Spellchecking

[m LESLIE319@xxxxxxxx]

On 19-SEP-1995 02:13:55.9 xywrite said to LESLIE319
  >From Mike Gawdun
  >>Maybe I am wanting to be pampered by XW and shouldn't be asking for
  >>such features that are available in other Windows word processors
  >>but when I am in spell check mode and I am being prompted to add a
  >>word to my personal dictionary, it would be easier if I only had to
  >>click on the Add button only and not have to click on two
  >>additional buttons after I choose to add a word. The additional
  >>prompts are completely unnecessary.

  >From Leslie Bialer:
  >>Just make it go away. Geez, the danged thing will stop on MacArthur
  >and
  >>McKinley every bleeping time. There is no way to fix it, apparently.

  >If you'd use the keyboard rather than that accursed rodent you
  >could simply reconfigure your .kbd file to include the requisite
  >succeeding keystrokes (Q1-Q8) and thereby get exactly what you want. I
  >haven't tried it, but you should.

I don't think this will work, Harry. I use the keyboard in the
Dos Version and the same things happen. I'll give it a shot,
though. What's your beef with rodents? Don't you find them
time-saving? I guess not, or you wouldn't have called them
accursed.


  >From Leslie:
  >>And while we're on the subject. Can't that "double word encountered"
  >feature be
  >>configured so that if a punctuation mark appears between the words
  >the
  >>double word message doesn't kick in?

  >You said it! I don't see a workaround for that. Remember also the
  >spell-checker is from Microlytics, not Xyquest or TTG. Of course I'd
  >bet a competent assembly language programmer could fix it in 1/2 hour,
  >but perish the thought.
  >Someone here, I think Carl Distefano, mentioned that the best way
  >to spellcheck is to use the command
  >spell file1,file2
  >where "file1" is the file to be checked and "file2" is the name of the
  >file Xy will create that contains just the questionable words. Then
  >you can write a little XPL code to process the errors much more
  >easily. I think Carl even has posted something like that. Can you
  >refresh us, Carl?

  That's a good idea, Harry, but sometimes you have to see the
word in context to know if it is okay or not. Suppose, for
example, you are working on a book that, say, contains quotes
from an English writer. If you just see a list of words and
find, say, labour, you might be Americanizing a direct quote if
you aren't careful.

  Thanks, though. I appreciate your good advice.

--Leslie--

`[1;37;42mRainbow V 1.19.1 for Delphi - Registered