[HN Gopher] Writing like a pro with Vale and Neovim
___________________________________________________________________
Writing like a pro with Vale and Neovim
Author : feross
Score : 155 points
Date : 2022-06-17 16:01 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bhupesh.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (bhupesh.me)
| remoquete wrote:
| As a technical writer, I use Vale every day. It helps protect
| consistency and style. I wrote a brief tutorial here:
| https://passo.uno/posts/first-steps-with-the-vale-prose-lint...
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Thank you for this - an example of the config made it all so
| much clearer - I would recommended the author steal some of
| that post for their README
|
| To over-simplify, vale runs hundreds of pre-built regexes that
| suggest changes to over-used phrases, likely function names etc
| etc. Google etc have pre-built fairly good defaults I suspect.
|
| (To be fair this is trying to get consistency across huge
| document bases, and will never replace a human's authentic
| voice for communication. But sometimes you just want to make
| sure there are the same number of blueberries in each muffin)
|
| Ok - my mission after next - get something like this brought in
| at work
| mjrbrennan wrote:
| What a coincidence, I watched Casino just last night!
| remoquete wrote:
| Feel free to reach out to me if you need some ideas. I
| brought it to work successfully and I'm now trying to get the
| rules to go open source.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Thank you - I could not find your details in your profile -
| my email is in my profile so please feel free to ping me
| :-)
| malikNF wrote:
| It's in their about page. https://passo.uno/about/
| mooreds wrote:
| I took a whack at using Vale a year or so ago, but was
| overwhelmed by having to either:
|
| * creating my own style guide
|
| * using one of the existing ones
|
| We have a DevDocsReadme that has some style rules we enforce
| manually. Is the best way to get going with vale to start with
| that doc and write rules for that?
|
| Can you apply rules to asciidoc and markdown source docs, or do
| you have to apply it to the end product (HTML, etc)?
|
| It seems like such a cool idea. Any pointers to 'get started'
| for existing largeish documentation sets would be much
| appreciated. (I will read your tutorial, @remoquete.)
| user3939382 wrote:
| It feels weird to me to read/write prose in monospaced fonts.
| Semiapies wrote:
| I'm comfortable writing prose in monospaced fonts, but I tend
| to switch out for reading and revising. In Emacs, I just hit
| variable-pitch-mode.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >Installing vale
|
| >Download a latest version of vale from their github releases
| page.
|
| Looks like Vale took a break in this section.
| mempko wrote:
| This is really cool. Never heard of vale until today. Is there a
| vim plugin that can take advantage of it? I don't use neovim and
| never plan to.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| vim-ale[1] combines a LSP client with the ability to shell out
| to linters and supports vale
|
| 1: https://github.com/dense-
| analysis/ale/blob/master/supported-...
| tombert wrote:
| Out of curiosity, and this isn't meant to be passive aggressive
| or anything, but why the resistance to NeoVim?
| teruakohatu wrote:
| I have an old vim config that I haven't had motivation to
| switch over to Neovim.
|
| I find configuration frameworks, which are so popular right
| now, a lot of work to understand and not very
| flexible/opinionated.
|
| Lastly, vim is usually available everywhere, so I am just a
| git clone away from having my configuration deployed.
| halostatue wrote:
| There's no good replacement for gvim / MacVim.
|
| I've tried _all_ the GUIs that compile for the Mac. I can't
| stand a single one of them.
|
| I can't stand using vim / nvim on the terminal for most of my
| editing. Not sure why, but that's my reasoning.
| joemi wrote:
| I'm not the person you asked, but in my case it's mostly a
| "if it's not broke, don't fix it" situation. I don't need
| neovim since vim is just fine for me. There are a few neovim-
| only plugins I wouldn't mind trying out sometime, but I don't
| need them, and I use very few plugins so they probably
| wouldn't make the cut for me anyway. And there aren't any
| neovim-only features I care about (besides mild interest in a
| few plugins).
|
| That's what most of my personal "resistance" is about. The
| rest is due to fact that I'm still a little bitter from some
| bad interactions with some early neovim developers and fans.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| A quick search got me `vim-compiler-vale`, which seems to do
| exactly that.
| groby_b wrote:
| Pretty much every recommendation in the example screenshot is
| nonsense.
|
| I strongly suggest learning to write better instead of relying on
| this. There are writing classes. There are teachers. There are
| editors. And if all of that is too expensive for you, ask friends
| and colleagues for feedback.
|
| Relying on algorithms to improve your style is at best a no-op,
| and at worst actively harmful to good writing.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| IMO one of the best ways to improve your writing is just to
| read a metric crapload of good writing so it seeps in to you.
| tombert wrote:
| Another thing is to not be afraid _rewriting_. Usually when I
| write an essay /paper, I take a short break after the first
| draft, and then go through, re-read it, and make major
| changes to the wording/structure in the process. Generally,
| the first revision is substantially better than the draft,
| and the second revision is substantially better than the
| first revision.
|
| There's no law saying that you have to get all of your
| phrasing and flow perfect the first time around.
| runevault wrote:
| Huh never seen this before or managed to forget it exists. Also
| looks like it does have a VSCode plugin for those of us who don't
| wanna fight with Vim. Tempted to try it with the write-good
| linter and see what it says about some of my novel prose.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| The answer to writing better isn't a "static code
| completion/linting tool, but for English."
|
| Leave it to the tech industry to really exemplify the "when all
| you have is a hammer..." mentality.
| d0mine wrote:
| Any activity has boring aspects. Using the tool to automate
| such things should be encouraged.
|
| Obviously, linters can produce many false positives--they
| shouldn't be used blindly.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I can see where you're coming from but I don't believe
| something like Vale will - in practice, not in theory -
| actually do that. You would need a general purpose AI to pull
| that off, otherwise domain-specific, bespoke, one-off tools
| (eg to transform an API into a documentation template, to
| make skeleton release notes out of git/GitHub/Jira/whatever
| records, etc) combined with a two-hour crash course on
| effective writing are probably the way to go.
|
| But obviously enough people disagree that this is a thing..
| although that could be said for quite a number of "technical
| progress" milestones we currently celebrate.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Sometimes tools that seem to help us make us more reckless.
|
| I wonder if tools like grammarly have this problem..
| rojobuffalo wrote:
| boredom is useful to a writer. a lot of my favorite writers
| have mentioned writing all first drafts with pen and paper.
| what happens in your brain when you're writing is important,
| even when it feels boring, slow, or repetitive. who has a
| better sense of where my attention should be, me or a tool?
| imo better writing is the product of practice, reading, and
| better thinking. all of that to say, if you have a pre-
| publishing step where you need to check spelling, grammar,
| capitalization, punctuation, etc. a linter might fit in at
| that step. but i really don't think a tool is better than
| your own reading or giving it to an editor you trust.
| Jolter wrote:
| Nice post contents, but is your shift key broken or
| something?
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| You don't use any kind of spellcheck / grammar checks on
| documents?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| That's hardly the raison d'etre of Vale and co, and that's
| arguably replacing (quite poorly!) the job of an _editor_ not
| the _writer_.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Most people that write content, even more so the target
| audience of this post, don't have a editor (other than the
| software editor).
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Please use editors.
|
| I typically get two different people to edit my blog
| posts...
| toma_caliente wrote:
| As someone considering starting a casual blog, I would
| not use an editor and defintiely not editors. Seems like
| a weird gate to keep.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| One misspelling, mixed metaphor, missing contraction.
|
| Nobody writes flawlessly. It is hard to find your own
| mistakes, much less understand if content will make sense
| to someone else.
|
| An editor is someone who can read your work, help catch
| errors and suggest improvements.
|
| No you don't need to go pay someone, but either trade
| editing with a friend or find another way to compensate
| whoever is providing editing for you. I usually buy my
| editors dinner but adjust based on how much time
| investment you are asking of them.
| cestith wrote:
| I see a typo.
|
| You do not get to choose when a writer uses a
| contraction. You might expect that I'd have used "don't"
| there, but the simple truth is people use the full words
| even conversationally sometimes. This is especially true
| when they want to emphasize the "not" part of a phrase
| like "will not", "would not", or "do not". Your suggested
| edit changes the meaning of the parent post a shade.
|
| Where's the mixed metaphor? You may be able to sell me on
| "weird gate to keep" being a trite metaphor or perhaps
| even an awkward metaphor. What's mixed about gatekeeping,
| which seems to be a single common metaphor?
|
| If this is the quality of editing the tool offers, one
| may wish to stick with spellcheck. Encouraging a
| particular organization's writing style within that
| organization can have some nice effects, but you don't
| get to determine everyone else's writing style.
| corrral wrote:
| Editors are expensive and publishers don't really provide
| that service to authors, anymore. You're expected to have
| that all taken care of before you submit, even to
| publications that _barely_ pay (or even some that don 't
| pay at all).
| leephillips wrote:
| I make most of my income from writing. My experience is
| the opposite of this.
|
| https://lee-phillips.org/whypay/
| vorpalhex wrote:
| As a heads up, this is not loading for me. Your other
| pages seem fine, and I'm not getting a 404, just an empty
| page. Doesn't seem to be adblock or pihole.
| leephillips wrote:
| Thanks for the heads up. It's fixed now.
| corrral wrote:
| Page is blank for me and I couldn't find a version though
| your site's search.
|
| Your experience is that editors are cheap and that
| publishers readily supply substantial editing services,
| _not_ requiring that practically all editing work is done
| before entertaining a submission? That 's contrary to the
| experience of multiple close friends and relatives who
| are writers or are working on getting published, and to
| that of multiple others I follow whose experiences I've
| heard or read about.
| leephillips wrote:
| Sorry about that. I don't know how it happened, but it's
| fixed now.
|
| I don't know what you mean by editors being cheap. I
| don't pay them, they're employees of the publications I
| write for. I assume they're underpaid, of course.
|
| My first draft is better than the finished product you'll
| find in most publications (not bragging, it's just the
| truth). Before it's published, however, it goes through
| several rounds of editing with from one to three editors,
| and a technical review. This can last weeks. I may have
| to generate five revisions before it's good enough. It
| could be that your acquaintances are writing for
| publications with lower standards.
|
| EDIT: By the way, if you have friends who are submitting
| to publications that don't pay, or pay only a token
| amount, please suggest to them that they stop. This
| depresses the market for writers who are tying to make a
| living with it. Don't fall for the "exposure" gambit or
| give away your stuff to feed your ego. You're being
| robbed.
| corrral wrote:
| > Sorry about that. I don't know how it happened, but
| it's fixed now.
|
| No problem, shit happens.
|
| > My first draft is better than the finished product
| you'll find in most publications (not bragging, it's just
| the truth). Before it's published, however, it goes
| through several rounds of editing with from one to three
| editors, and a technical review. This can last weeks. I
| may have to generate five revisions before it's good
| enough. It could be that your acquaintances are writing
| for publications with lower standards.
|
| Premier genre periodicals, as no other short fiction
| venues pay worth a damn, these days. Novels through trad
| publishing--the ones I know who self-publish barely edit
| at all and certainly don't pay for editors, which is,
| judging from the quality of the median self-published
| work, evidently the norm in that world. Household-name
| monthlies, with non-fiction writing, in those cases,
| though some of those publications do also print fiction.
|
| The ones I know who publish longer-form non-fiction
| writing do seem to get somewhat more support from their
| publishers, to be fair, but _most_ of the editing work
| does still need to be done before submission or you 're
| getting round-filed. Those also tend to be more well-
| defined and goal-oriented pieces, so content editing is
| less necessary or extensive.
|
| What most will do, at least, is tell you what to cut if
| they need the piece to be shorter.
|
| [EDIT]
|
| > EDIT: By the way, if you have friends who are
| submitting to publications that don't pay, or pay only a
| token amount, please suggest to them that they stop. This
| depresses the market for writers who are tying to make a
| living with it. Don't fall for the "exposure" gambit or
| give away your stuff to feed your ego. You're being
| robbed.
|
| Oh don't worry, they're all pretty allergic to that. Good
| warning though, and worth mentioning. The lit-fic market
| especially is a complete joke in this regard. But I
| suppose it's hard to blame publishers when they have such
| a glut of people willing to put words to paper for little
| or no compensation.
| leephillips wrote:
| Hmm. I had in mind non-fiction, as we were discussing
| editing. I can't imagine a fiction writer wanting his or
| her creations to be touched by an editor. But I accept
| your report that such people exist.
| halostatue wrote:
| A lot of fiction writers don't, but desperately need such
| editing.
|
| I've read plenty of books that could have told the story
| in 20% fewer pages, or had a swapped character name,
| or...
|
| Some of these passed through multiple layers of editing.
| Some of these "passed" through those layers because the
| writer got too famous or cantankerous or...
|
| I acted as one of my wife's editors for her books, and
| some of the things that I checked (as it was recent
| historical fiction) included whether the weather she
| described for a chapter _matched_ the weather reported by
| Environment Canada. She had one scene in early April of a
| year where she said that the "last of the snows had
| gone...", but there was a snowstorm on the 3rd of April
| or something like that. As the weather was _not critical
| to the scene_ , I insisted that it either be dropped or
| changed (she changed it) -- because getting that sort of
| item wrong can throw a reader out of the flow of the
| book.
|
| In another instance in her second book, she had a weather
| condition that was crucial to the plot. We looked to see
| that it would be _plausible_ (e.g., it was not 50 in
| February in Toronto in 1979), then let the weather
| condition stand because it mattered.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Editors are expensive. There's also a reason most
| publishers who have stopped using them have experienced a
| major decline.
|
| Skilled labor is expensive. Editors are skilled labor.
| Those who use them will benefit from that labor.
| corrral wrote:
| Yes, editors are _wonderful_ and ought to be paid well
| (even if authors aren 't...) but authors who can't afford
| editors (i.e. _all_ the ones trying to break in to
| writing but who don 't have substantial financial
| backing) benefit greatly from tools that help them do
| their own editing more efficiently.
| leephillips wrote:
| I don't believe it (but am willing to consider actual
| evidence, if any exists). Spellcheckers, sure. But until
| we get an actual AI with general intelligence and
| cultural awareness sufficient to understand the nuances
| of human language, even "grammar checking" can not be
| mechanized.
|
| Really, anyone considering working as an author who can't
| produce an excellent, polished first draft without an
| editor should consider a line of work more attuned to his
| or her talents.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > Really, anyone considering working as an author who
| can't produce an excellent, polished first draft without
| an editor should consider a line of work more attuned to
| his or her talents.
|
| Really, anyone considering being a programmer who can't
| write a program without bugs on the first try without an
| IDE should...
|
| Yeah that seems overly harsh and incorrect. Skills take
| time and practice to develop.
| corrral wrote:
| Sure, maybe, but the better automated tools get, the
| higher standards will be before submissions are
| considered. I bet slush-pile readers were a lot more
| tolerant of the occasional tranpsosed letter before spell
| check existed, for instance. Now if there's even _one_
| misspelling in a piece it looks like you 're not trying
| at all, since you should have seen the red-squiggle, and
| into the rejections you go. So it will become (already is
| becoming) for brevity, clear wording, avoiding
| repetition, et c.
|
| If tools save time or reduce the technical skill
| required, that seems great to me. Art's about the
| finished product, not how it gets there, though popular
| understanding of how artists work and how they _actually_
| work may differ substantially. Almost no authors can
| _always_ recall the exact word they want, the precise
| wording of that phrase they want to quote, the rule for
| some particular piece of grammar, and so on--they may
| have a whole shelf of _Brewer 's_ and _Roget 's_ and
| _Webster 's_ and _Garner 's_ and Strunk & White for that,
| plus computerized tools, these days. Why _not_ have tools
| for the other aspects of editing? Why _not_ have a
| computer find a suggestion for you, before you even think
| to consult a source or scrutinize a passage more closely?
|
| Plus, I guess I don't care much about any sort of purity
| in the writing process since practically the only
| accepted style, these days, in English writing at any
| rate, is fairly rote and prescribed and very simple. Did
| that sentence seem too complex? Did it have too many
| clauses? Does your inner editor's voice pipe up while
| reading it? Yep, exactly--it violates that very-modern
| style, even if only a bit. May as well take the next step
| and let a machine enforce those rules.
|
| More generally, as a lover of books and reading and
| writing, I'm pessimistic about the future of the whole
| enterprise. I think making a living as a writer, outside
| the usual handful of trust fund minor-celebrity lit-fic
| authors, is going to involve _a lot_ of machine
| assistance, to the point that "writing" will mostly be
| massaging and curating the output of machines.
| Ghostwriters beware--and/or get ready to quintuple your
| output, using new tools, just to keep your head above
| water. In the meantime, a little help from tools like
| this might get the last generation of small-time authors,
| with actual ideas of their own but without an eye for
| editing, to print, before that becomes all but impossible
| even for the very-talented.
|
| It's a good thing there's already enough excellent fully-
| human-produced writing to last even fairly-avid readers
| _several_ lifetimes. At least until and unless life
| extension really gets going.
|
| [EDIT] I'm aware, incidentally, that some of these
| paragraphs disagree with one another. I stand by my
| contradictions. :-)
| alehlopeh wrote:
| I don't think "writing better" is even a question, so what are
| you expecting out of an answer? Whatever it is, this article
| doesn't claim to have it.
|
| TFA is explicitly targeting technical writing.
| Semiapies wrote:
| And specifically certain prose issues in technical writing.
|
| It's like writing is a complex activity, and just _one_ of
| its sub-tasks is editing prose.
| capableweb wrote:
| I don't think Vale aims to bring someone that already knows
| English into mainstream-author territory of writing, but rather
| help with basic/medium errors that everyday writers do. Or even
| help people who maybe don't write that often.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| This seems to be an overly negative take on the article. There
| are many different qualities of good writing, and this happens
| to automate one of them.
| triyambakam wrote:
| Tab9 is an ML powered completion engine that works for code and
| prose. It won't help you write better but it is very good at
| suggesting word I was about to use next.
| gnuvince wrote:
| A post about writing means that I need to plug a couple talks by
| Larry McEnerney. [1,2]
|
| The tool described in this blog post is all about text-based
| rules: what the _text_ ought to look like. To improve your own
| writing (a) learn who your readers are, (b) know what they value,
| and (c) write so that as readers, they find your work valuable to
| them.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM [2] https://youtu.be/aFwVf5a3pZM
| Semiapies wrote:
| Only if you consider it worthwhile to spam with links about
| agile development in discussions of linters.
|
| Writing, like programming, is a task that involves work at
| multiple levels.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I just learned that my IDE, PhpStorm from Jetbrains, comes
| bundled with a plugin called Grazie which wraps vale. So you may
| have been using this and not even realize it.
| henning wrote:
| > Vale requires to have a .vale.ini config file
|
| Having to provide a configuration file for every little fucking
| thing and completely refusing to have any set of reasonable
| defaults when you install a package is the worst part of Neovim.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| This is neat, any other projects similar? Notably ones that work
| perhaps with more of an LSP-like API?
|
| Not sure if it makes sense as an LSP, but if it was i could hook
| it into my editor of choice (Helix, at the time of writing)
| easily
| guessmyname wrote:
| > _This is neat, any other projects similar? Notably ones that
| work perhaps with more of an LSP-like API?_
|
| https://valentjn.github.io/ltex/
| jcoder wrote:
| This seems interesting, but given that the recommendations in the
| very first screenshot are >50% "wrong" ("HOW" is not an acronym,
| "tap" makes no sense in this context), I can only imagine that
| using this tool would be a huge distraction while writing.
| leephillips wrote:
| In fact, _all_ the recommendations in the screenshot are wrong
| or useless. This is the example they chose to showcase the
| awesomeness of this software? Amazing.
| skrebbel wrote:
| It has been demonstrated that you're entirely out of tap if
| you can't imagine Home Office Weekly this could be useful.
| nmilo wrote:
| Avoid second-person pronouns such as "you're".
| ryanklee wrote:
| Yeah, this is not good at all.
|
| Even something arguably well-executed and compatible with
| "established" style heuristics, like Grammarly, will always
| be dubious, as they perpetuate the myth of linguistic
| prescriptivism weaponized by language pedants. All of whom
| are annoyingly, vocally, interminably incorrect.
|
| But this, this is just baldly idiotic.
| [deleted]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| They have rules loaded that are primarily for writing technical
| documentation. (I assume the tap/touch is from the Google
| rules). Most technical documentaition style guides will
| recommend avoiding first person, but that makes zero sense for
| e.g. a blog post. Assuming ALL CAPS words are likely to be
| acronyms is also reasonable in such a context.
|
| Vale also has multiple severity levels, so disabling e.g. the
| "suggestion" (and maybe even "warning") level while writing
| live would make a lot of sense.
| leephillips wrote:
| "Most technical [documentation] style guides will recommend
| avoiding first person"
|
| Not even true. They recommend against first person singular.
| cbsks wrote:
| Google recommends avoiding first person:
| https://developers.google.com/style/person
| nathias wrote:
| I had a linter for text, it kept coloring 'black' as offensive so
| I uninstalled it.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| They don't mention that you can write the rules yourself and also
| pick and choose from existing rules from GitHub.
|
| There is an attempt to build and open source version of Grammarly
| using vale rules here[1]. Rules are mainly regex based, but some
| target readability measures[2] or use parts of speech[3].
|
| [1]: https://github.com/testthedocs/Openly
|
| [2]:
| https://github.com/testthedocs/Openly/blob/master/Openly/Rea...
|
| [3]: https://github.com/errata-ai/vale/issues/356
| blameitonme wrote:
| Openly, last commit: 13 months ago :(
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| I've always been hesitant to use a service which ships thing's
| I write back to home base. Instead I used Microsoft word, which
| turns out does similar.
| kgarten wrote:
| It seems openly is just a folder with rules on your hard
| drive. Vale is also offline ... don't really understand your
| comment.
|
| I would not use anything closed source and bloated as Word. I
| wrote my BSc. thesis in it in the 2000s. Could not open it
| correctly anymore after 5 years. It took ages to open.
|
| Switched to vim and latex for my master and phd thesis. Never
| looked back ...
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Sorry see my post direct in parent. My statement was poorly
| worded.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| It's too late to edit my original post but this wasn't meant
| as an accusation of vale, it was actually intended as praise
| for vale the tool given most others are basically keyloggers.
|
| Very poorly worded on my part.
| dijit wrote:
| Scathing accusation. Is there a citation?
|
| I won't use another office product from them if so.
|
| Seriously.
| AlanYx wrote:
| You can see Grammarly's statement on the matter here:
| https://support.grammarly.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/360003816032...
|
| When enabled, it does basically send every keystroke to the
| mothership except in some fields on webpages and on mobile
| apps marked sensitive.
|
| However, they do have what seems like a solid privacy
| policy in how they handle the data they receive.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > However, they do have what seems like a solid privacy
| policy in how they handle the data they receive.
|
| Not to be a Debbie Downer, but that provides no comfort
| at all. The best privacy policy is to not have access to
| your data.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Ah, so not related to Vale the programming language,
| https://vale.dev/, which IMO is much more interesting.
| LionTamer wrote:
| Just discovered the Vale programming language for the first
| time thanks to your link - looks pretty interesting. I've been
| meaning to learn a new language that is (a) simple (or if not
| simple, at least elegant enough to make the lack of simplicity
| worthwhile) (b) type-safe & performant. I was between Nim & Zig
| but might need to give Vale a shot.
| nagisa wrote:
| I tried running vale with the good-writing plugin on one of my
| blog posts. I won't claim I produce great literary works, but a
| fair bit of warnings it output were false positives. Even
| conjugates such as "write-only" would trigger its weasel word
| trigger for "only".
|
| Ultimately, it is the technical limitations that make the tool
| unusable for me. On one hand, a Github-flavoured markdown parser
| is used. It filters out some obscure HTML tags such as `mathp`,
| and I couldn't find a way to configure the tool so it would
| ignore the math segments. I even tried to forgo vale's built-in
| markdown converter, and run the check on the output of the static
| site generator instead, but that plan was quickly foiled by the
| soft hyphens my generator inserts. Given such an input vale
| considers every syllable a separate word.
| lyjackal wrote:
| regex based prose linting seems rife with opportunities to
| write buggy regexes
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-17 23:00 UTC)