Thank you! I had completely forgotten about this, I appreciate that you dug this one out of the archives!
> Existing spellcheckers for code usually have quite high rates of false
> positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not become a
> burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is best
>suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like static
> code analysis.
Sounds good.
