Edvaldo Jr. wrote:
Jason,
Yes, and it is still smaller, lighter with source code that is easier to understand than
OO.o.
This is exactly my point!
And just in case, I'm an Emacs user, so I have nothing against it
I am also an Emacs user, and I agree with you. The way that I read your
previous message suggested otherwise to me. I am glad I was mistaken. :)
But
I've been hacking OOo code and Emacs code for sometime now, and I'm
telling this just because I got a little bit worried about adding this
kind of complexity just to implement things that are (in my humble
opinion) so out-of-scope to an office suite.
I agree that these features are out of scope for an office suite.
I have been trying to hack OO.o code for about a year, now. However, I
fear that I lack the free time to contribute anything significant to
OO.o. I think that the size of OO.o's code base is a deterrent to
getting outside developers involved.
Edvaldo de Almeida
==============================================
[email protected]
Fone: +55-21-2252-0078
==============================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
