Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:03:16PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You are clearly underestimating the required effort and
the maintainance nightmare of a font based solution. UI is important
yes but having developers understand the source code is also important
in an open source project.
I do not think that the current font range implementation cause lots
of problems.
I really think the way fonts are used in LyX is *really* complicated and
caused us lots of problem in the past.
Can you give examples of this? (Serious question --- I haven't found this to
be the case, I've actually found it to work well.)
Change tracking. Initially it was crippled and very limited,
then I partly un-crippled it, and then Michael put in _a lot_
of effort to iron all the bugs out and instill some sanity.
I have done this (or a small part of this) and implemented
new insets, and I can tell you what I found easier ;-)
I think this is not a fair argument. First of all, because this was done
using the current font-attribute implementation, which is not
generalized enough IMO.
Secondly (and much more importantly), because CT itself is *very*
complicated any way you look at it, regardless of the implementation
details. I don't believe it would have been easier if you had used
insets. So this really isn't a valid argument.
