Re: lynx-dev Lynx lite

[mattack]

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Al Gilman wrote:
>If there is a clear consensus among the people who would want a
>lite image as to what capabilities could be pruned, then it makes
>sense to use a single ifdef switch.  Otherwise it may make more
>sense to do a two-step process and first make sure that there is
>a switch per feature that one would prune in one or more
>situations, and then to define lite configurations based on
>switch setting profiles.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that both of these can be easily
accomodated.. it makes about as much work for those who want to prune by 
feature, and is just as easy for those who don't want all of the "junk" 
(according to them).

#ifndef LYNX_MINIMAL
#ifdef THISFEATURE
        blah blah blah
#endif
#endif