Re: lynx-dev alternative DIY patch for non-auto-input-field-entering

[Klaus Weide]

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