Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g

[Klaus Weide]

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Philip Webb wrote:
> 990301 Kim DeVaughn & Laura Eaves discussed:
> KD> *I* would really like to see a way to avoid having to enter "g" at all,
> KD> since most often, I want to move to a link, before activating it.
> LE> I agree the 123 and 123g syntax is backward.
> LE> This was discussed way back when Klaus first implemented 123g.
> LE>  123  (with no g) was left unchanged for backward compatibility.
> KD> Why should users of today's lynx be *forced* to live with a paradigm
> KD> from the past, for no reason other than "backward compatibility"?
> KD> Especially when there is a more "natural" paradigm available.
> KD> you think it's "backwards", I think it's "backwards",
> KD> and I believe I've seen comments from others
> KD> that point to their thinking that it's "backwards" ...
> 
> well said!  backwards compatibility has not always been observed,
> eg when occasionally someone has decided a new spec requires a change
> in well-established behaviour: examples omitted to avoid distraction.

[ and more in the same vein omitted ]

I suggest that, if someone wants to do this, you not just switch the
meaning of the suffixes "" and "g", but use a new suffix.  I suggest
"f" = "follow".

     Klaus