Subject: Why we can use A&Pspell [was: Why we can't use ASpell]
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 16:15:44 CDT
Dom Lachowicz wrote:
>
> While it is true that aspell uses
> templates and exceptions, it is not wrong of us to use it (or against our
> coding guidelines, either).
Ahh, good to know.
> We depend on pspell and aspell as shared libraries, which are completely
> contained within themselves.
Wouldn't we still have to compile Aspell and Pspell to create the shared
libraries? Even if precompiled RPMs are available for many unices, wouldn't
we have to compile them for Win32 (when it can be done)?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons we don't use the
so-called "advanced" parts of C++ is that the world is still full of crappy
compilers calling themselves "C++ compilers" (the other reason is to keep
the threshold regarding needed knowledge about C++ as low as possible).
If we allow libraries to use a little more C++ than we do, wouldn't it imply
we can use e.g. std::map if we just wrap it in a non-template class and say
"we don't have this as a core module of AbiWord, we use it as an imported
library", or am I pushing my luck? :-)
> The functions that we use from the pspell API do not throw
> exceptions or require that we use templates to pass in the arguments.
OK.
I tried to get Pspell to compile on Win32, but since it uses the dated
iostream library (header files ending in .h) and contained a few bugs, it
was impossible. I have however now fixed it and will mail Kevin a patch.
/Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 16:15:00 CDT