Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change

[Laura Eaves]

> From: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:56:10 -0500 (EST)
>...
> > > I suppose a configurable option for this is probably too much to ask for 
> > > though (sigh). 
> >  
> > IMO, lynx already has too many configure options, which seem to be 
> > added every time a small change is made. 
> > Does this require a config option? 
>
> configure script or options-screen?  (if it's reasonably transparent
> to existing usage, there's no reason for an options-screen or .lynxrc
> or lynx.cfg -- that seems to be what people are discussing).
>
> I'd use configure script mainly to be able to easily factor out bloat
> or experimental code.

Depends on where u want the bloat -- configure, lynx.cfg, option
screen, binary size, source code size/complexity.
Adding a configure-time option would necessitate ugly ifdefs.

Anyway, the 123[pg][+-] stuff is so small that I doubt it contributes more
than a drop in the bucket to binary size.  It's also backward compatible
so an option in lynx.cfg or .lynxrc isn't necessary, IMO.
--le