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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: [patch] kword spell-checking
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2002-03-25 2:24:41
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 25 March 2002 02:45, till busch wrote:
> hi,
> 
> here comes my first patch for the background spell checking in kword (maybe 
> useful in other apps, too). [...]
> i had to move away from the kdelibs kspell-implemetation, as it has many heavy 
> flaws, which i can't correct because of kde 3.0's near release. (at least 
> people in #kde told me not to). so i added two more files to lib/kotext/: 
> kospell.cc and kospell.h, which are contained in the tarball attatched.
> spell-as-you go works for typing.. there is still the paragraph deletion 
> problem, which i will face next, if everything is ok.
> maybe i should also readd some qtimers - to delay the background things.
Well, yes, the first thing that strikes me is that nothing appears to be delayed
anymore.........
Can you explain the changes? This is so much of a rewrite that just reading
the patch quickly doesn't really tell much about what it tries to address.
What's the queue used for? Does it mean the spellchecking is actually
delayed, so the loop over all framesets doesn't really check all framesets?
[that would be a good thing ;)]
 - but the initial method did this by simply looking at "what's the next
text object [frameset, in kword] to be checked". That way is more dynamic
than a queue or a list, which means that when deleting a text object we don't
need to look in the queue or list to see if it's still there (dangling pointer if it is!).
We only need to check if it's the current object being checked, but that's all.

What was missing in kspell that makes it necessary to have kospell?
I'm not opposed to the idea, but since I fixed kspell as I thought needed, I'm wondering
what's still missing there.

Design-wise I like the use of the paragraph visitor class there.... but I think
the concepts of "what's the next object to check" (note the bool that was added
to skip unchanged framesets etc.) and "wait a bit until checking the
next object" should remain. Unless you found flaws with those concepts ?
Please elaborate, we can't make a decision at this point without a comparison
of the two methods ;)

> btw. i'd really like to get cvs-write-access to koffice, if possible.
No problem, send encrypted password to me, but I'd like to discuss this change
before it gets committed ;)

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~david/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]