Re: lynx-dev LYNX: need another option: turn off auto-reFormat

[Vlad Harchev]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, David Combs wrote:

> 
> When printing out various documents "narrowly" 
> (stty cols 79, vs 132)
> 
> , what would be nice is to go in "wide" fmt to a page
> of links to various things I'd like to print,
> THEN ^Z   go-narrow,  fg, AND LEAVE IT THAT WAY.
> 
> (which I cannot do today -- I must ^Z set it back
> wide again, and fg, THEN "go back")
> 
> That is, working from a WIDE page, 
> I click on a link, I want THAT PAGE to come up
> NARROW.  Maybe I print it, maybe I don't (ie after looking
> at the contents).
> 
> THEN -- and HERE is the problem -- I then "go back" (H) to the
> links page -- which I (and you) want to show WIDE (else you can't
> read it very easily, with the strings to the right of the
> [links] taking sometimes the entire 132.)
> 
> Because if you show THAT page at 79, and it becomes REALLY 
> hard to see.
> 
> Here's the PROBLEM: when done looking at and maybe printing
> that (narrow) page, I want to return to the links-page.
> 
> PROBLEM: doing that vikeys "h" (go back) REFORMATS THE PAGE!
> 
> But I don't WANT it to do that -- at least not when
> in this mode of looking at a links page and maybe printing
> various articles linked-to BY this links-page.
> 
> (NOR do I want to have to ^Z, set screen wide, fg, and ONLY
> THEN "go back" to that links page (via "h").  Why not?
> 
> Because is it not only a REPEATED pain to do all these
> ^Zs and set ttys and fgs, I often FORGET to do it (and
> so will you!).


 You can insert the following lines in lynx.cfg:
external:http:echo enter file name;read fnm;lynx -dump -width=66 %s >$fnm:TRUE 

 This will work for any 'http' urls.
Add lines like this for each url scheme you wish (tho' I was unable to use it
for 'file://' urls - it does nothing). '66' is the screen width used when
dumping. IMO this method is even preferable than printing with 'p' even if
line width needn't be changed - by adding -nolist to the command line of the 
links invoked it's possible to get rid of list of links.

> 
> It is unfortunate that there seems to be a religious argument
> for keeping the option page to ONE screenfull.
> 
> The gain from adding another (useful) option FAR OUTWEIGHS
> the "pain" (what pain?  Not for me!) of having more than
> one screenfull.
> 
> (Screenfull on what?  24-line screen? 70-line screen?  Palm-pilot screen?)

  Seems you are talking about options menu, but as I understand it's
considered obsolete, option forms is considered as a current was of setting 
options (and that form is longer than 2 pages on 25 lines screen).

 > ---
> 
> David
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad