Angus Leeming wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You've just described my very plan . I just thought it was obvious so
I didn't care to write it so explicitly. The problem is just that Lars
won't allow step 1.
<lazy drawl>
Man, you really are too prickly.
</lazy drawl>
Yep, happens to me sometimes ;-). I refuse to take all the
responsibility. I just want you all to realize that there's some
management problem.
Read his mails again (snippets below). I don't see nothing that says "NO!"
Man, it's easy to select only some mail and not others...
here:
| I have taken into account all comments except for the spellchecker
| changes. I am tired and too lazy to do it... But I will put Ispell
| back if there is consensus about that.
No need for consensus. Just put it back. Even better: get some rest.
Fixup the patch to not remove it, and then commit.
And there:
| > | > 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.
