2008/6/23 Jim Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dotan Cohen wrote: >> >> Installing the extension (which I'm not doing) would solve >> the problem for me, but may introduce other issues. > > Why so negative? >
No, I'm not being negative, I just prefer to keep my third-party code to a minimum. > It probably won't introduce other issues. > > Would you refuse to use a new version of a program, such as OOo because, > though it fixed some bugs, it will almost certainly introduce new bugs? > (Every version of OpenOffice.org has introduced new bugs.) > Of course not. I will update as soon as OOo 3 is available. Third party extensions are a different matter. > The macro is accessed through the Format bar as a separate command and > doesn't change the normal Find & Replace behavior in any way. And you can > always uninstall it if you find it causes any problem whatsoever. > It's not the potential problems that I am avoiding. I just don't like bloat. I found a way around my issue (cut and paste to Kate and back) without inflating OOo. If there is an extension that provides a real function that I need, I will use it. I have such extensions for Firefox and Thunderbird. > Do you believe that using macros is wrong (because any macro *may* introduce > other issues)? > No. >> The solution would >> involve bringing the OOo behaviour in line with standard behaviour at >> best, and at worst would involve assigning \n to a single entity no >> matter where it is used. > > That, of course, is *a* solution, but one that doesn't exist at the moment. > And such a fix would introduce compatability issues with past versions of > OOo in respect to \n, and might possibly also unintentionally introduce > other issues. Can you assure me that no other issues would ever be > introduced in an attempted fix? So I guess you really shouldn't use that > either, by your logic. > Actually, a major version change (for example, from 2.x to 3.x) is expected to break backwards compatibility. > A more reasonable solution without changing anything else would be to allow > Unicode characters represented by \x followed by four digits to be used in > the "Replace with" box as well as in the "Search for" box. Then one could > replace $ with \x000A. > > But attempting to implement that solution *might* also introduce other > issues. > > In short, fear that any change *may* introduce new issues resolves quickly > into fear of any change whatsoever. > I stink that you misunderstood me. Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
