bug#81638: 32.0.50; flyspell-prog-text-faces type and semantics

> From: Michael Heerdegen <[email protected]>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]>,  [email protected],
>   [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 02:35:20 +0200
> 
> Stefan Monnier <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > I'd be surprised if I'm the only one who has shell scripts where
> > heredocs contain natural language text.  I agree it might not be
> > desirable to add those elements globally, but they do make sense
> > file-locally.
> 
> My initial motivation for reporting this was: I expect there will be
> other kinds of markup languages or languages describing documents out
> there where people will want to use a feature like `flyspell-prog-mode'.
> Where it makes sense to be able to control this on a file or dir local
> basis.  The point is: we don't know which (other) faces those modes may
> use or add.

AFAIU, flyspell-prog-mode is not for markup languages.  It's for
program source code.  If we want a variant of Flyspell for markup
languages, we should add it -- this is basically what I proposed.  The
advantages are: it will be less kludgey, and it will be more
discoverable.  The implementation should be simple, so frankly I'm
surprised this suggestion is not immediately embraced by everyone 😉.

> OTOH I don't understand what the benefit of the restricting the binding to
> to a subset of three given faces is.

The restriction is in the purpose of the mode: it's meant for
proofreading comments and strings in program sources.

> The warning might catch a typo,
> ok.  But getting a warning every time I open the document is annoying.

I agree that you should not see the annoying warning, I just don't
think flyspell-prog-mode is what you want.  You want a different
flavor of Flyspell, one that is suited to text with markup (TeX, HTML,
Markdown, Texinfo, etc.).

Anyway, I think my opinion is clear, so if you-all still want to do
what Stefan suggested, feel free to ignore me.