Thanks, but I think you are giving me too much credit, though :-)
Cheers,
Peter
On 02/27/2013 09:23 AM, George Wade wrote:
The Chinese have a way of thinking about this: thinking is not doing — so go
out and do it for a year, or five or twenty five. Thinking each evening while
planning the next day's work and study. If we do well enough we may write
about it and become a respected master.
I don't know if you have noticed the Chinese and Indians taking over the
world's banking, industry and health. We are lucky to have Peter as a master.
George
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:29, Peter Bienstman wrote:
On 02/27/2013 05:55 AM, pharmtech wrote:
It's hard to find a good balance between abstraction/flexibility and
concreteness/simplicity. I like Mnemosyne's simplicity, but I'm not
yet sold on how plugins (all the way down to the level of defining
card types, multiple fields, etc.) will work. If I distribute a deck
based upon complex fields, layout, etc., it seems like anyone who uses
that deck will have a tedious learning curve identifying, downloading
and installing all the plugins required by that deck.
As I told you a few times before in private conversation, please don't make any
assumptions like that without knowing how libmnemosyne2 is designed.
User-defined card types are stored in the database without the need for
plugins, and interoperate well with the sync and export functionalities. Also,
there is no issue whatsoever with the card browser.
If you want 'proof' of this, for cloned card types you also don't need to
distribute any plugins. User-defined N-sided card types can make use of exactly
the same machinery, it's just that the UI side of things has not been written
yet...
Peter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mnemosyne-proj-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
