Subject: Re: Why we can use A&Pspell [was: Why we can't use ASpell]
From: Dom Lachowicz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 16:34:56 CDT
> > We depend on pspell and aspell as shared libraries, which are
> > 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,
> we have to compile them for Win32 (when it can be done)?
Sure, we probably would have to either:
1) Distribute the libraries themselves
2) Link to a download page for said libraries
> 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
> compilers calling themselves "C++ compilers" (the other reason is to
> the threshold regarding needed knowledge about C++ as low as possible).
Well, the Abi code itself does not use templates or exceptions, and should
continue to follow this trend for the time being. That said, there are no such
limitations on libraries that we can *potentially* link to. For instance, g++
can handle both templates and exceptions quite well (esp. in the recent 3.0
release). The important fact (for me, at least) is that use of pspell or ispell
is conditional in the Abi sources - I created an interface class which both
implement. Add a little makefile magic, and presto! it all works.
> If we allow libraries to use a little more C++ than we do, wouldn't it
> we can use e.g. std::map if we just wrap it in a non-template class and
> "we don't have this as a core module of AbiWord, we use it as an
> library", or am I pushing my luck? :-)
Keep dreaming :-)
> 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,
> was impossible. I have however now fixed it and will mail Kevin a patch.
I'm sure he'd appreciate this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 16:35:15 CDT