Re: lynx-dev dev.18 patch: USE_PRETTYSRC, lynx.cfg

[Vlad Harchev]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > > 
> > > > PRETTYSRC.ATTRNAME_CASE:
> > > 
> > > Please noooooooo...
> > 
> >  Why?
> 
> I'll save more serious arguments for the (I hope unlikely) case that
> anyone else but you thinks that it is is a good idea to do this.
> 
> Note that I say: to *do* this.  Not just to speculate "wouldn't it be nicer
> if our syntax looked like this", but to actually proposed doing it.

  OK, so far seems you don't hate the syntax so much.
 
> >  Please don't be so emotional about FOO.BAR. Why do you hate it so much?
> 
> Nothing wrong with it if it were lynx.cfg's format from the beginning.
> It happens not to be.  It seems completely pointless (except for the
> fact that you are using points...) to nicify the syntax like this
> without *really* soving a problem with it.  If you want to
> revolutionize options & preferences handling, it would make sense to
> start with studying the various ideas that have already been suggested
> (but not implemented AFAIK) for somehow unifying the mechanisms for
> lynx.cfg, .lynxrc, command line flags, etc.  (That would probably mean
> spending some quality time with a search engine...)  I'm sceptical about
> those, too... but at least they have long-term goals that make sense.

 So you don't like this naming scheme even PRETTYSRC.*, yes?

> >    Seems you don't like the idea of synonims for options. OK. How about 
> > this:
> > 
> > CHARSET.OUTGOING_MAIL
> > CHARSET.DISPLAY:
> ].....[
> > 
> > <not all current options were covered>
> 
> It would be nice if *some* options were more logically / systematically
> named.  I don't think using dots vs. underscores does much to improve
> that.
> 
> Now explain what equivalent changes to make to command line flags and
> .lynxrc saved options and userdefs.h, and suggest a migration strategy
> (including for the documentation), and I might start to take it more
> seriously...

 Why commandline flags and userdefs.h and .lynxrc need be changed?  

> >  IMO the names are more self-documenting (at least they tell what category 
> > the
> > options control).
> 
> So you don't trust cfg2html.pl much for telling the category, hm?

  Of course I trust, but the name of the option and the documentation of the
option are two different sources of information for the user.
 
>   Klaus
> 

 OK, let's talk about those 3 PRETTYSRC.* options, not about total migration.
 
 Best regards,
  -Vlad