On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 08:17:37PM -0400, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:22:10PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>>On Tue, 19.04.2011 at 12:15:00 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>>> There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code:
>>> codespell
>>> from http://www.p
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:22:10PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>On Tue, 19.04.2011 at 12:15:00 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code:
>> codespell
>> from http://www.politreco.com has already been used to find mistakes in both
>> Linu
On Tuesday 19 April 2011 13:15:00 Bruce Cran wrote:
> There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code:
> codespell from http://www.politreco.com has already been used to find
> mistakes in both Linux and LLVM. I ran it on sys/ and it found lots of
> potential typos - the full
On 19.04.2011 13:15, Bruce Cran wrote:
There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code: codespell
from http://www.politreco.com has already been used to find mistakes in both
Linux and LLVM. I ran it on sys/ and it found lots of potential typos - the
full diff (which I know
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code:
> codespell
> from http://www.politreco.com has already been used to find mistakes in both
> Linux and LLVM. I ran it on sys/ and it found lots of potential typos
On Tue, 19.04.2011 at 12:15:00 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> There's a new tool that can be used to find spelling mistakes in code:
> codespell
> from http://www.politreco.com has already been used to find mistakes in both
> Linux and LLVM. I ran it on sys/ and it found lots of potential typos - th
