[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_IN
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE
Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:23:56 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> As for sub-options in lynx.cfg - I think that
> 1) Complication of code that parses suboptions in a way Klaus propsed, e.g.
> FOO:A,B - is totally unnecessary compared to the net effect it gives -
> just getting rid of new toplevel option.
I have to admit I forgot (or never understood) why Henry finds this as
important as he does.
> 2) Complicating the syntax makes the use of various scripts and tools
> that edit or parse lynx.cfg very complicated and impossible.
All you can rely on with *existing* options is that they have the form:
<OPTION_NAME> ':' <content completely specific to the option>
with only certain characters allowed in <OPTION_NAME>, and some minimal
rules about the right side (like: there can't be newline chars).
> 3) Hiding several suboptions under one toplevel option decreases the
> flexibility of extended INCLUDE syntax.
> 4) This is the first precedent of complicating things in that way (FOO:A,B) -
> suboptions were implemented as FOO:A:V1 and FOO:B:V2 before. I don't want
> to make the broken syntax as FOO:A,B normal.
No, it isn't the first time. Try
egrep '[A-Z_]+:[A-Z_]+,[A-Z_]+' lynx.cfg
> As for pride in my work - I'd better spend time on hacking some other Open
> Source project (a lot needs hacking alas) rather than turning the syntax of
> lynx.cfg in completely unparsable by external tools.
1.) Human readers should matter more than some hypothetical external tools.
2.) So the case you'll find with egrep broke some external tool? I don't
think so. I didn't hear you complain.
The existing options all have their own syntax rules already, anyway.
For example, in some URL- or file-like options backslash is interpreted
as an escape and in others not, sometimes whitespace is significant, etc.
> I already proposed an approach to naming options - they should contain dots
> and thus lynx.cfg will look like X resources file, e.g.:
...and be just as confusing to the average person.
> I state that I will implement only toplevel option for this feature (no
> suboptions for this). It's up to Tom to (not)include/edit the patch I will