|
|
|
|
|
by routerl
3762 days ago
|
|
Sorry, I guess that example was too terse. I was referring to a hypothetical American creative writer, writing a scene in which a British character writes a letter. In this hypothetical work, written in US English, there would then be a section of text that used UK English spellings. The naive spell-checker would not understand the context, and would flag these as misspellings. This was meant to be analogous to my "incrementing a void pointer" example; the static analysis tool produces warnings which the author knows to ignore. In the C programming case, my function was passed the size of the objects comprising the array pointed to by the void pointer, so the linter was wrong to tell me I was making a mistake. Similarly, the spell-checker was wrong to say "change this instance of 'colour' to 'color'". Similar considerations apply to prose linters. Polonius would be a lesser character if shed of cliches, and a good writer would know to ignore the linter's opinions on the matter. |
|