feat(core): added a bunch more common rules #940
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn description(&self) -> &'static str { | ||
| "Corrects the archaic or mistaken `fro` to `for` when followed by a noun." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "Corrects the archaic or mistaken `fro` to `for` when followed by a noun." | |
| "Corrects the archaic or mistaken `fro` to `for`, or `from` when followed by a noun." |
It could be a typo about fro used instead of from
I received a letter fro Sarah
I received a letter from Sarah
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, while fro is archaic, it's irrelevant since it's not an archaic form of for. It's an archaic form of from and is only used these days in to and fro.
I wonder if some logic for rare/archaic words could have a flag in the dictionary to allow them to get a warning and still undergo spellcheck. We'd want to find other instances similar to fro for that to be worthwhile. I know that back in the day spellcheck dictionaries purposefully left words out that were correct but rare and likely to cause confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you suggest we change the description, or remove this rule as well as the dictionary entry for fro?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you suggest we change the description, or remove this rule as well as the dictionary entry for
fro?
I would probably test if the spellcheck handles it. I've noticed it often doesn't make what I consider the 'obvious' suggestions for many mistakes. I haven't checked this one.
If the spellcheck suggests 'for' and 'from' we can probably do without the rule, but if it fails to suggest those then it's probably worth keeping the rule with a changed description.
At some point we probably want to add some code to 'score' suggestions in other ways than just pure edit distance to help get the best 3 into the suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's been around for a while now. See harper-core/src/spell/mod.rs fn score_suggestion. I've tweaked it a bit, but I'm not sure how to achieve the desired behavior.
I think we should keep the rule with an updated description.
Description
I've gone ahead and added a bunch more phrase corrections.
Checklist