Subject: Re: Fututre Pspell Plans [Was: Re: Commit: Pspell fixes]
From: Kevin Atkinson (kevina@users.sourceforge.net)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 21:45:31 CST
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Agreed. There is a less-than-optimal amount of converting occurring. The
> only reason I'm doing this is because of the 2-byte null requirement and
> because (i think) you told me that multi-byte encodings were "experimental"
> or something like that.
The only reason the multi-byte encodings are "experimental" is because it
is untested. AbiWord will test it and thus find any bugs ;)
> >
> >Do you think this would be a good idea?
> I think that this would be a great idea. It'd save a lot of needless
> conversions in the Abi code, which would be a good thing. Once you add the
> length argument to the Pspell methods and release a new version (0.12?),
> I'll fix Abi's spell-check code accordingly.
Great. You are correct in assuming that it will be 0.12.
BTW: One minor announce is there a reason the Pspell code is in a file
called pSpell and not pspell. Pspell is NOT capitalized as PSpell just
like Ispell is not capitalized as ISpell....
---
Kevin Atkinson
kevina at users sourceforge net
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Nov 12 2000 - 21:35:50 CST