lynx-dev about downloading and source cache (was: THANKS AND QUESTION)

[Klaus Weide]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Philip Webb wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 06:19:47PM -0600, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > Leonid and I recently talked about whether 'd'ownload should use
> > a source_cache copy.  I said then that yes that would make some sense.
> > But I've changed my opinion again now...
> > 'D'ownload means "download", period.  It's always meant that.
> > The user can expect that a new download attempt will be made,
> > rather than just using a (possibly corrupt) cached copy.
> 
> true, as a bit of pedantic fatalism (smile),
> but that's surely no reason why Lynx can't ask the user
> eg "Download from WWW or use source cache?"

No, *that* isn't.  The reason why I didn't even consider that is that I
really hate it when (familiar & frequently-used) commands start asking
additional questions like that.

Some folks want some new behavior.  I agree that the posssibility of a
download-like function that may take from a cache makes sense.  But I
don't see why this has to be grafted onto the existing DOWNLOAD key
command.  'd' is already doing double duty, as a "proper" download
command and as part of a circuitous "download the current document"
recipe.  Maybe it's time to make that latter one unnecessary, by
creating a DOWNLOAD_CURRENT_DOC key command.  That could naturally
have different semantics w.r.t. caching.

Why are we discussing this anyway?  It'll enter lynx-dev history as
another pointless, ineffective, theoretical discussion unless
someone's going to write code (and I'm not volunteering, I don't think
you are, I don't know about LP or PG who brought this up).
(But making a new DOWNLOAD_CURRENT_DOC function and adding try-to-use-
cached-doc-copy functionality to it may actually be simpler to implement
than adding try-to-use-cached-doc-copy to the current DOWNLOAD[_LINK]
code.)

    Klaus