Fwd: Re: Code patches vs. macros vs. plugins (was: Re: Re[2]: INS)

From: Hubert Figuiere (hub@nyorp.abisource.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 06:03:36 EST

  • Next message: Hubert Figuiere: "Fwd: Re: Code patches vs. macros vs. plugins (was: Re: Re[2]: INS)"

    ----- Forwarded message from owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com -----

    Message-ID: <3E2DF6AD.7000502@mail.microbsys.com>
    Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:41:01 -0800
    From: "Robert G. Werner" <rwerner@mail.microbsys.com>
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202
    X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    To: Omer Zak <omerz@actcom.co.il>
    Cc: abiword-dev <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
    Subject: Re: Code patches vs. macros vs. plugins (was: Re: Re[2]: INS)
    References: <Pine.GSU.4.30_heb2.09.0301211323060.2334-100000@actcom.co.il>
    In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSU.4.30_heb2.09.0301211323060.2334-100000@actcom.co.il>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Omer Zak wrote:
    > Not exactly. My suggestion is to take this one feature from EMACS.
    > For the OS stuff we'll use other mechanisms (such as plugins, already
    > supported by AbiWord).

    Please don't feel that I was hostile to your idea. I just saw Emacs,
    Guile, and Scheme, and saw a perfect (IMHO) opertunity to be a
    smart-ass. My only real objection to programing my Word Processor is
    embedding macros in the documents and thus opening up the possiblity
    of Macro Viruses like MS did in the mid ninetys. Other than that, I
    can surely see some important uses for it, especiallly in the area of
    mail merge.

    So keep on thinking.

    Robert G. Werner

    I'd rather push my Harley than ride a rice burner.

    ----- End forwarded message -----

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 06:04:15 EST