Hello All. I have revived the 10th edition spell(1) program, allowing it to compile and run on "modern" systems. See https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/v10spell ; the README.md gives an overview of what was done. Enjoy! Arnold
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --] Very cool. Thank you On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote: > Hello All. > > I have revived the 10th edition spell(1) program, allowing it to compile > and run on "modern" systems. > > See https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/v10spell ; the README.md gives > an overview of what was done. > > Enjoy! > > Arnold > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 866 bytes --]
You're welcome. Yet Another Labor of Love. :-)
Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> Very cool. Thank you
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:11 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello All.
> >
> > I have revived the 10th edition spell(1) program, allowing it to compile
> > and run on "modern" systems.
> >
> > See https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/v10spell ; the README.md gives
> > an overview of what was done.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Arnold
> >
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:10:37AM -0600, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> Hello All.
>
> I have revived the 10th edition spell(1) program, allowing it to compile
> and run on "modern" systems.
Great! I've been using this extensively on my writing, but I've been
using the version that comes with plan9port. It'll be nice to have a
standalone version.
Thanks!
khm
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:42:13PM -0700, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:10:37AM -0600, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> > Hello All.
> >
> > I have revived the 10th edition spell(1) program, allowing it to compile
> > and run on "modern" systems.
>
> Great! I've been using this extensively on my writing, but I've been
> using the version that comes with plan9port. It'll be nice to have a
> standalone version.
How is this better than spell(1) on Linux?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:58:35PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> How is this better than spell(1) on Linux?
Assuming you're talking about GNU spell, it suffers from feature creep
(localization stuff, hard-coded markup filters, etc) which makes the
code less pleasant to work with. I'm not sure why my spellchecker needs
curses support, but GNU spell has it. Also I don't like having to worry
about licensing cruft when I e.g. copy a binary over to a system at
work. If I can do my work with 5% the source code, that's generally my
plan.
khm
Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:58:35PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > How is this better than spell(1) on Linux?
>
> Assuming you're talking about GNU spell, it suffers from feature creep
> (localization stuff, hard-coded markup filters, etc) which makes the
> code less pleasant to work with. I'm not sure why my spellchecker needs
> curses support, but GNU spell has it. Also I don't like having to worry
> about licensing cruft when I e.g. copy a binary over to a system at
> work. If I can do my work with 5% the source code, that's generally my
> plan.
>
>
> khm
It's not clear what 'spell' is --- it differs from distro to distro,
often based on aspell. Whatever is on Ubuntu doesn't even know
how to use 'sort -u' on its output.
For myself, I don't claim that v10spell is better or worse than anything
else out there; it simply provides another option, especially for fans
of the original Unix code. :-)
Arnold