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?
We are in perfect agreement then.
--
Lgb
