[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev dropping reference list when printing
From: |
David Combs |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev dropping reference list when printing |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:40:57 -0800 |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:17:30AM -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> 000224 David Combs wrote:
> > So that we can rip off the sometimes-huge "References" section
> > of an output from Lynx, maybe append a colon ":" to the word.
> > Or maybe even more, to make it "more unique".
>
> which word? even more what? what's it?
>
> this is basically a very useful thought:
> how about a prompt question: `Include reference list in output? Y/N'
> how difficult would that be to code?
> it would certainly be very helpful to many Lynx users.
>
"which word?" Well, suppose I want to remove the ENTIRE "references"
section. All I need do is "/^References$/,$d".
Or an alias for a sed one-liner; or for a perl one-liner, that
writes the output back onto itself.
All I was saying was that just the single word "References" on
a line by itself -- well, THAT string could EASILY be sitting
right in the middle of the BODY!
I suggested only that that word be made a bit more "unique",
with maybe a colon after it -- well, that's not so good,
because, in the midst of text, "References:" might actually
not be too uncommon.
Maybe "references-section", or "lynx-output references-section:" --
THAT looks pretty unique to me!
----
Usually, I want to KEEP the references section. So, for ME,
a PROMPT, as suggested above, would simply slow me down.
(Unless it had a default answer (settable by the user!), so
that a carriage-return (bare) would be all that's needed --
that wouldn't slow down things too much. But REQUIRING a
y or n is too much, at least for me. I mean, if I screw
up, I can just do it again!)
Actually, I don't like the prompt-idea too much.
But, an OPTION to either (a) say yes or no to include the
references-section or not (AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY: to
type out "SAVED WITHOUT REFERENCES SECTION" (or "WITH")
could be ok, or
(b) an extra line in the P(rint) menu FOR "without refs".
---
David