[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev (patch) jumps ambushes

From: Klaus Weide
Subject: Re: lynx-dev (patch) jumps ambushes
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:29:31 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Philip Webb wrote:
> 991203 Klaus Weide wrote: 
> > Yep, it does what it's told.
> so, let's tell it to do something else! ie use the URL in  lynx.cfg .
> > The '?' is just a convention.  There's *nothing* in the code
> > that makes a shorcut named "?" in any way special.
> > You don't have to have one.
> you should have checked  userdefs.h :

I have checked the code.  The above paragraph reflects what is implemented
and what isn't.

>   Make sure your jumps file includes a '?' shortcut
>   for a file://localhost URL to itself:
>    <dt>?<dd><a href="file://localhost/path/jumps.html">This Shortcut List</a>
> it looks as if that's what the original programmer intended, doesn't it? 
>  lynx.cfg  has a different warning, which i probably wrote.

It looks like the writer of those lines didn't care to document all

> > Because a binary search is done on it.  (but see below)
> so why does Lynx have to do a binary search?
> why not a search similar to the usual one invoked by  /  and  n ?
> the jumps file is likely to be quite short for most users.
> the fact that it started that way & has never been changed
> is no reason not to revise it now.

So you suggest to make it less efficient because some users can't read

> > I like the flexibility that is there
> > and see no good enough reason to dumb it down.
> flexibility?  dumb down?  whatever are you talking about?

Flexibility: '?' can be a shortcut for whatever you want.

I call trying to enforce some policy that has no technical reason "dumbing
down" in this case, yes.

> it's a primitive piece of hackery, never updated ...

Shrug.  If you fell so contemptuous, then don't use it.

> > Lynx will display whatever URL you put there (if valid).
> it follows what we are told in  userdefs.h  (see above).

Are you claiming that my statement is untrue?

> >> +  *** ALSO *** The entries must be in ASCII order:
> >> +  otherwise, Lynx will not be able to find them.
> > Sorting is case-insensitive.
> so?  you must put  .  and  ?  before the other entries:

So: "ASCII order" is wrong.

> that's not something anyone would know from the original documentation.

So make it clearer (but without introducing false statememts).
(I don't think everyone is familiar with the ASCII order anyway.)

> > I doubt ASCII order is true for EBCDIC platforms.
> let's see if anyone with EBCDIC replies.

It doesn't make sense for non-ASCII characters on your computer either.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]