From: Omer Zak (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 03:43:01 EST
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Andrew Dunbar wrote:
[... an INS suggestion has been snipped ...]
> Something which AbiWord doesn't seem to have yet is
> a set of "unapproved" patches.
> This is a perfect candidate for such a patch.
> Somebody could write (and maintain) it for those
> people who want it, for a price.The code is never
> committed to the mainline AbiWord CVS server but is
> kept elsewhere.
While the idea of having unapproved AbiWord patches is good, I don't think
that this mechanism will be necessary to support intrusive INS protection
I don't know enough about AbiWord to discuss its macro and key rebinding
mechanisms, but for example in EMACS, you can redefine any key
combination to execute an arbitrary EMACS-LISP code. And such code could
be written to pop up a dialog.
In the case of AbiWord, if this is not already implemented or planned, I
suggest to think about a mechanism for supporting key combinations
rebinding and macros. The scripting language to be used for macros could
be Scheme (Guile) or Python.
Another possible approach is to ensure that the plugin interface allows
rebinding of keys to execute an user-selected plugin, and the plugin is to
be sufficiently powerful to either eat an key combination (for example, to
eat the INS keypress if the user chooses "No" in the INS protection
dialog) or pass it on to the rest of AbiWord.
An advantage of macros and key rebindings over code patches or plugins is
that macros and key rebindings can be developed on all platforms
supporting AbiWord, and once developed, they can be used in all platforms
without any recompilations.
May I ask the mighty AbiWord Gurus to come forth and summarize what kinds
of macro/key rebinding/plugins support, which are relevant to the INS
protection problem, are available/planned for AbiWord to us mere mortals
who didn't learn yet the mysteries and antics of AbiWord?
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 03:45:39 EST