[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev next/prev link
Re: lynx-dev next/prev link
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:31:41 -0600 (CST)
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Philip Webb wrote:
> 990207 Klaus Weide wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Larry W. Virden wrote:
> >> If someone were to figure out enough about lynx internals
> >> to fix the way next/prev link works so that they actually move
> >> from link to link instead of from page to page,
> >> would applying that code break any important processing?
> > I don't consider the current behavior broken.
> > It is how PREV_LINK and NEXT_LINK always worked in lynx.
> that's hardly rational: clearly, it's always been broken.
Clearly, if the only argument against another's argument is that it is
"clearly" wrong, there's clearly something missing.
> it's another example of the hastily hacked coding which surfaces sometimes
> & is either left asis because created by Heroes in the Golden Age or ...
I don't think you know waht you are talking about.
> > I am used to being able to use Down Arrow repeatedly
> > and eventually see all the text.
> ... because someone has got used to it & is too lazy to learn a new habit.
> ok, yes, (smile)'s all round.
Clearly, if Philip Webb wants something to behave differently, then others
had better accomodate lest they be called lazy.
> > Whether the functions should be named differently is another question.
> the name is correct: the code doesn't do what it should.
> this has been discussed in several threads recently:
If there is anything I have overlooked that was more than people stating
there preferences, please point me to it.
> NEXT_LINK should goto the next link, however far down the document,
> & NEXT_PAGE should goto the next page, regardless of links:
> users should be free to bind each of them to whatever keys they choose;
> as for textareas, we now have ^v to escape from them,
> besides being able to number links thro' Options to skip past them.
> > TAB acts different from other keys,
> > even if they all show NEXT_LINK in the 'K'eymap page.
> > See FASTTAB in LYMainLoop.c .
> BL> The #ifdef FASTTAB code which explicitly tests " c=='\t' "
> BL> is wrongly hard-coded.
> BL> Make it go through the usual command binding paths.
> this has to be another bit of primitive hackery: BL is right.
I would appreciate it if you did not put words in other people's mouth.
BL didn't call this "primitive hackery". Oh by the way, please define
the term, or admit that you don't kown what you are talking about.
> Lynx developed from nothing thro' a great deal of dedicated work by FM,
> who kept adding features which generally worked adequately,
> but sometimes never got back to perfecting them.
> today, we're in a position to clean things up when we come across them,
> as FM surely hoped & assumed someone would do later on.
Meaningless rhetoric, IMNSHO. Ignoring such tiny incaccuracies
as "developed from nothing" - why are "we" "today" in a better position to
clean things up than "then"? Is Now the Golden Age of Perfecting?