Re: lynx-dev Redundant link movement cmds?

[Philip Webb]

990130 Kim DeVaughn wrote: 
> my quest led me to look at the existing code
> for the LYK_NEXT_LINK and LYK_PREV_LINK cases.
> Whereon, I discovered cases for LYK_DOWN_LINK and LYK_UP_LINK,
> which I don't think I realized were distinctly different commands before.
>  <           UP_LINK       move up the page to a previous link
>  >           DOWN_LINK     move down the page to another link
> and
>  Up Arrow    PREV_LINK     make the previous link current
>  Down Arrow  NEXT_LINK     make the next link current
> And the code for the corresponding pairs looks quite similar
> Why the need for the UP/DOWN commands, when we have the PREV/NEXT ones?
> A quick comparison between the "<" and "UpArrow" keystrokes,
> and between the ">" and "DownArrow" keystrokes
> didn't seem to do anything different.
> glancing through the UserGuide didn't seem to mention "<" and ">",
 
there's a lot of otiosity around these commands,
which i suspect goes back to the Dark Ages of Lynx,
when things were first being hacked in to fit eccentric terminal needs.
we lack a command to  GOTO_THE_NEXT_LINK_IN_THE_DOCUMENT ,
which  NEXT_LINK  should logically do, but doesn't.
if you can clean the mess up, thousands will benefit ...

see my note on another puzzling pair --  NEXT_LINK  &  NEXT_PAGE  --
in  http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month0199/msg00255.html .

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto