lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

lynx-dev Re: syntax change


From: Kim DeVaughn
Subject: lynx-dev Re: syntax change
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:31:26 -0800

On Sun, Feb 28, 1999, Laura Eaves (address@hidden) said:
|
| I've also been thinking 123+ and 123- without g or p should be
| outlawed as the user is less sure of the destination link when
| typing relative numbers.  Any thoughts?

Yes.  I really dislike interfaces that attempt to protect me from
myself, based on someone else's notion of what's good for me.

Unless, of course, there are destructive consequences, such as
causing the display to get trashed, or side-effects such as deleting
files, etc.

In this case, it's not harmful, so it shouldn't be disallowed based
on the vague notion of a user being "less sure" of something.


| I could easily change the syntax again to 5g+, etc if people really want
| it that way.  But I'll wait for replies first....

I think your original syntax was just fine.

OTOH, it should be easy enough to allow *either* 123+g or 123g+ to
be valid, with only an additional line or three of code (just a bit
of peeking ahead at the char following the initial "+" or "g", etc).

*Requiring* a leading 0 however, is obtuse, IMO, though it too could
probably be made optional (doing so would probably require more than
a line or two of code, since 0 is recognized as a command in and of
itself (F_LINK_NUM), even when link numbering is turned off).


Finally (since you're fiddling with the interface anyway), *I* would
really like to see a way to avoid having to enter the "g" at all, since
most often, I want to move to a link, before activating it.

For those few times when I actually *do* want to immediately follow the
target link, adding (say) an "f" to the link number, wouldn't be a
problem for me.

I suppose a configurable option for this is probably too much to ask for
though (sigh).

/kim

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]