Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > | >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes
| > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > | | Lars> Then our spellcheck abstraction is wrong. | | Yes :)
| > | > | | Lars> The controller does not need to know if it is accessing the
| > | > | Lars> spellchecker through a process or through a lib.
| > | > | | Indeed. And the idea is that enchant might do that for us.
| > | > However,
| > | > | what I would like first is some research to be sure that enchant does
| > | > | everything we need in all platforms.
| > | > And what if something new pops up tommorrow? Or that I want to create
| > | > support for useing www.webster.com as my dictionary?
| > | > Will I then have to recreate the abstraction that was just deleted?
| > | | Who talks about deleting the abstraction? My patch surely
| > doesn't do
| > | that. I actually think it would be a good idea to keep aspell for a
| > | while until Enchant has been proved to be in widespread use as JMarc
| > | said. IOW, the Enchant support class will of course derive from
| > | SpellBase.
| > Then what are you arguing about?
|
| I am not arguing, you are.
|
| > We are in perfect agreement then.
|
| So, you agree to remove ispell and pspell support?
Hmm... I thouht you were going to add enchant support?
Why do you have to remove ispell and pspell to do that?
Obviously we are not in agreement after all.
--
Lgb
