Re: VC6 and BCB5.5 patches

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jose Da Silva" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gary Setter" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches


> On Saturday 26 February 2005 06:46 am, Gary Setter wrote:
> >>>>> Fact is there are lots of ordinary people who
> >>>>> have to do projects based on decisions others make for
> >>>>> them, and if it comes down that .NET support is required,
> >>>>> there is nothing they can do.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> You do recognize that some people would consider feeding
> >>> themselves and their family reason enough to comply with a
> >>> demand for .NET support?
> >>
> >> You appear to come short on saying it out loud, but since
you
> >> bring it up again, I am going to guess that someone is
willing
> >> to pay you to put in .NET support.
> >> Congratulations.
> >
> > Wrong, I just recieved an e-mail from a user. There is no
money
> > in this for me.
>
> Accept my apology on assuming that this was a paid gig,
> after all, it was based on what you had posted above.
>
Understood, I might have made the same mistake myself.

> That's unfortunate, because if people are demanding things and
> quoting things like the above (must have .NET, can't feed
themselves
> otherwise doom&gloom, etc), then they should think about
donating
> something for the time "you" put in.
> After all, it is your time that they affect.
>
> Somehow, people seem to think in a double standard where it
> is okay to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on windows
> software yet must expect free service for no pay, for open
software.
>
I agree whole heartedly.

> > I'm interested because I would learn something.
>
> Okay, so you're not talking about starving,
In fact I had a very good breakfast with waffles, peaches, and
coffee. Ah Sunday morning.

> must have, doom&gloom here.
> Which means there is no desperate rush to get it done.
> Which means you have plenty of your own time to follow up
> on your own schedule.
No rush on my part. You truely have no empathy for others?
> <snip>
>
> > I ask that you receive the question of OLE componant support
> > in the spirit it was asked.
>
> I have not had reason to go into OLE before and OLE isn't on my
> short term goals of interest either, so I can't help you.
> Perhaps someone else reading these posts have the answers,
otherwise
> I think you're going to be stuck following the suggestions I
mentioned
> earlier.
Ok. I will still report here what I found. Already I've found
areas were a small change would make it much easier to implement
OLE.
The Config::read_in_settings(const Config * other) function could
be split into a function that takes no parameter and another that
takes a second Config object to merge with.
I'll keep pluging along. You'd be surprised how one can
substitute brains for stick-to-it-ness.