Angus Leeming wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Then our spellcheck abstraction is wrong.
Yes :)
Being fair to John, he couldn't make sense of the original Controller stuff
when he wrote ControlSpellchecker. Being fair to me, I couldn't make sense of
ControlSpellchecker when I came to look at what he'd done ;-)
The code and logic in ControlSpellchecker are completely backward. Start again!
Yep, my patch was a first step in this direction but Lars just think in
terms of (unused) features. My strategy was to do the API right for one
platform (aspell) and then switch to Enchant. We could even add ispell
afterward...
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.
That's what it purports to do. It's a glue API that is meant to make it
trivial for apps like LyX to use "the right spellchecker" on different
platforms and for different languages.
As Jean-Marc suggests later in this thread, the correct thing to do for the
hypothetical webster dictionary case is to enhance Enchant.
Let's take the opportunity to make LyX simpler guys!
Too much resistance here I am afraid...
Abdel.
