[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: koffice + kospell
From:       Nicolas Goutte <nicolasg () snafu ! de>
Date:       2003-04-06 23:15:03
[Download RAW message or body]

I really think that the problem is the languages that we drop with this 
change.

From the kde-devel thread, we have already:
- Polish (aspell seems know much less words.)
- Estonian (no affix support.)

So despite the flexibility of using a library instead of a program, it also 
means that we are in process drop languages that worked in KDE and in 
KOffice.

So I too would prefer a solution where the user could choose at run-time what 
he wants (depending on the language would be even better but is perhaps too 
much work.)

Have a nice day/evening/night!

On Monday 07 April 2003 00:46, David Faure wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 06 April 2003 18:18, Laurent Montel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now I fixed bugs in kospell.
> > It used libaspell.
> > So if I decide to switch kpresenter/kspread/kword completly to kospell (
> > not possible to use two codes ( problem with config )), koffice will
> > require aspell-0.50.3.
>
> Since kospell is modelled after kspell, in terms of API, I was hoping that
> the "backend" (libaspell or aspell/ispell) could be chosen inside kospell
> itself (I mean the one we have in libkotext), without any #ifdefs in the
> applications.... Apparently this isn't possible right now (I see #ifdef in
> kword/kwview.cc etc.).
>
> Questions:
> * is the _API_ of the new libkospell very different from the one of KSpell?
> * maybe there are features that are only available in the new libkospell
> (the list of suggested replacements, for instance?)
> * what's different about the configuration?
>
> Questions to users:
> Are there many users who would see it as a big problem to have to install
> libaspell?
>
> Of course if everyone's fine with that, there's no point in my above
> questions which try to find out if it would be difficult to keep both
> backends. libaspell seems to be the most actively developed solution,
> compared to the old aspell and to ispell, so obviously libaspell "is the
> future"... And requiring it sounds better than having to support both
> cases, with problems difficult to debug etc.
> My concern is simply that good software design would indicate that
> the KoSpell API should be independent from the backend...
>
> - --
> David Faure -- faure@kde.org, dfaure@klaralvdalens-datakonsult.se
> Qt/KDE/KOffice developer
> Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, Platform-independent software solutions
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+kK4272KcVAmwbhARAiyNAJ0ZsvnD7F2/c0bLZPMqc9PAodhtjwCfZV30
> BlHYlJgIOKB+p7nH9cLHMNU=
> =p0VJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ____________________________________
> koffice mailing list
> koffice@mail.kde.org
> To unsubscribe please visit:
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice

____________________________________
koffice mailing list
koffice@mail.kde.org
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]