>>>>> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> What you won't understand that we just cannot help you. Well
Juergen> I'm speaking from my part. What should I do that could help
Juergen> your, if not backing out some of the "new" features you
Juergen> introduced. The problem is that we don't know that code and
Juergen> we don't have the time to get it known. We know the LyX
Juergen> source so we could work on that, but that wouldn't get us
Juergen> anywhere, we have to work on the boost stuff to get out of
Juergen> the pit. You know we all have counted time and you force us
Juergen> to work on stuff we aren't really interested in working at.
Juergen> And that is the main problem IMO. As you and for that also me
Juergen> and others said it is a freetime project and we do on it what
Juergen> we're interested at.
I could not agree more. LyX is not only an excuse to try out new and
exciting compiler technology. Can you give us one argument why boost
regexp is better than what we have? Because it supports wide chars?
AFAIK we do not care about that in 1.3.0cvs. We it appears that we
need it (and even if lyx format changed to unicode we would not need
it, since regexps are not used on that), then it will be time to think
about that.
I would feel much more excited at the prospect of trying out new
concepts in LyX code than buzzword-compliant technology (I am
currently making a review for a funding proposal, and I am sick of
middleware, XML, .NET, EJB, boost[*], RMI, SOAP and friends). Show us
ideas.
JMarc
[*] OK, OK, I made this one up, I admit it. Even them dare not try out
this particular technology.
