Re: lynx-dev renaming and refinement of ex-STICKY_FIELDS (was "sticky" things)

[Vlad Harchev]

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> Having PREV_DOC in the name shows what it is related to, even
> a simple text search gives some related info.

  The user should now about the existance of PREV_DOC key. IMO very few do
(even users that use lynx for several years but who didn't change
keybindings). But let's go your way and assume that everybody knows
keyactions.
 
> In other words consistency is good and trying to make option names
> completely self-describing is bound to fail anyway.  Maybe this is
> just another case of you trying to get out of writing the appropriate
> commentary. :)

  True for variable names.
 
> >   We both try to be consistent, but we have different POVs/understandings.  
> 
> You are trying to be consistent with some kind of human language
> sentence ideal, which isn't consistent with the common style of the
> older options (nearly all of them) nor with some of your own recent ones.
> Or so it seems.  My ideal is simpler: give related things recognizably
> related names.

 OK, let's choose your ideal (and you will be responsible for that name in
the changelog).
 
> > > > > no IFFORMCHANGED - that would seem to indicate that we check whether
> > > > >                    the form as a whole (any field) changed.
> > 
> >   I hope you don't critize its existance :)
> > 
> > > I don't know whether it would be useful.  Maybe it is.
> > > 
> > > But that function checks *all* form fields in the current page.  So
> > > it should be IFFORM*S*CHANGED.
> 
> Implementation detail: if you want to do this by calling
> HText_HaveUserChangedForms() in that place we all love, you
> have to additionally whether MyEdit.buffer has changed (and
> probably combine both with '||').  Otherwise the current (last)
> changes could get unnoticed, since they are not yet committed
> to the form structure at that point.  Also, MyEdit.buffer
> should then probably be compared against the 'form->orig_value' and
> not the 'form->value' - or maybe both.
 
 Thanks, really! It seems to me that I would written the code with this
mistake.
 Sorry for the absence of patch yet. I don't know when I will be able to code
it properly (in the next 2 days).

>    Klaus
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad