[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev alternative DIY patch for non-auto-input-field-entering
From: |
Klaus Weide |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev alternative DIY patch for non-auto-input-field-entering |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:46:34 -0500 (CDT) |
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
>
> >[...[
> > Of course, I don't consider my patch elegeant - this is actually a hack...
> > You can continue working in the direction you proposed - sorry I don't have
> > time go in your direction.
>
> I wish to add that I consider your solution as more elegant than mine. If you
> accomplished it with functionality I provide (or more), I would switch to
> your
> model (as long as you consider it reasonable too).
I'll try to add the functionality (or combine my approack with parts of
your code), after I get the simple (hah!) table stuff to a state where
others can try it. Have to force myself to finish that first...
Apart from more elegant or not, the visual appearance in the
not-activated state is different (as amply discussed), and since
I don't think *I* will use this mode (in either form) a lot, I though it
would be fair to let others decide. Personally I prefer the
appearance in my demo code - the difference is more obvious, it's like
a warning sign especially if one is used to the previous behavior
especially that keys will act different. But if many people prefer
your variant, then let's use that.
I don't think it's reasonable to provide a choice of both at runtime,
seems to much overhead for too little effect, IMO.
Klaus