Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > | Am Samstag, 9. September 2006 11:50 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
| > | > | | > Why can't enchant be added without touching the existing
| > | > spellcheckers?
| > | > | | I suggested that some days ago, but Jean-Marc argued that it is
| > | > too much | work if the others are supposed to be removed.
| > | > But we don't know that yet.
| > | | How much time do you think you need to take a decision? When you
| > make
| > | up your mind in one or two years, just tell me and I'll do the change.
| > | The code in ControlSpellChecker is awful and really too complicated
| > | and I am not willing to work with that.
| > What is it in SpellBase that makes to hard for the controller to work
| > with?
| > Does the controlelr ever see anything else than a pointer/ref to some
| > spellbase?
|
| Interfacing with a lib or a process is different. Just read the code.
Oh bullocks.
Then our spellcheck abstraction is wrong. The controller does not need
to know if it is accessing the spellchecker through a process or
through a lib.
--
Lgb
