[PATCH] Do not spellcheck "code" in logical markup module

[Scott Kostyshak]

Is this OK? Note that it came up here:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Scott

[Richard Heck]

Post by Scott Kostyshak
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Yes.

Richard

[Scott Kostyshak]

Post by Scott Kostyshak
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Yes.

It's in at e7b16d96.

Scott

[Scott Kostyshak]

Post by Scott Kostyshak

Post by Scott Kostyshak
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Yes.

It's in at e7b16d96.

Richard, do you want this in branch? I'm still trying to figure out
when to ask this question.

Scott

[Richard Heck]

Post by Scott Kostyshak

Post by Scott Kostyshak

Post by Scott Kostyshak
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Yes.

It's in at e7b16d96.

Richard, do you want this in branch?

I think this is OK. It's not a format change, since it doesn't affect
output.

Post by Scott Kostyshak
I'm still trying to figure out when to ask this question.

You always have to ask: Nothing goes to stable without my approval (though
Uwe has general permission re documentation).

So, any time you think it would be good to have the fix in branch, you
can ask.
Obviously, it must not be a format change, or depend upon one. And it needs
to be "safe". If it's not entirely safe, then it can go in early in a
cycle so it gets
plenty of testing. But otherwise, I'll usually say "yes".

Richard

[Scott Kostyshak]

Post by Richard Heck

Post by Scott Kostyshak

Post by Scott Kostyshak

Post by Scott Kostyshak
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/171622/how-to-exclude-code-from-spell-checking-in-lyx/171722#171722

Yes.

It's in at e7b16d96.

Richard, do you want this in branch?

I think this is OK. It's not a format change, since it doesn't affect
output.

OK it's in at 06c926e6.

Post by Richard Heck
So, any time you think it would be good to have the fix in branch, you can
ask.

This is what I'm trying to understand better.

Post by Richard Heck
Obviously, it must not be a format change, or depend upon one. And it needs
to be "safe". If it's not entirely safe, then it can go in early in a cycle
so it gets
plenty of testing. But otherwise, I'll usually say "yes".

This helps. Thanks for the explanations,

Scott