Re: lynx-dev dev.23: extended INCLUDE syntax broken for DOSPATH

[Vlad Harchev]

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> 
> >  May be we should impose a restriction, that there must be at least one ' '
> > before ':' - and this solves problems for all OSes, as in
> > 
> >  include:c:\lynx\mylynx.cfg :COLOR VIEWER
> 
>    include:c:\lynx\mylynx.cfg : COLOR VIEWER
> 
> looks slightly better... (they should be parsed the same way).
> 
> Btw. what would
> 
>    include:c:\lynx\mylynx.cfg :
> 
> mean? (a) everything disallowed (b) or everything allowed?

 (b) - Everything allowed for current file will be allowed in the included
file. The same for plain
 include:c:\lynx\mylynx.cfg

> >  We can make a following rule: only first ' ' before ':' will be removed -
> > to get a file name - this will allow the use of filenames terminating with
> > space.
> 
> That makes ':' different in this new option than in all other options,
> where it is never preceded by a space...

 As I said somewhere, we can leave ':' as separator on unix, and make ' :' the
one on other OSes - so it won't confuse potential users of this feature.
 
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > > 
> > >   include:~/.lynx/rc for COLOR KEYMAP VIEWER SUFFIX
> > > 
> > 
> >   IMO, implementation of  this "sugar" won't be obvious, and this will be
> > inconsistent with syntax of other lynx options.
> 
> I still like it... but not to the point that I insist if nobody
> agrees.  This option is different from all other options though, it's
> kind of a meta-option, therefore I would find this deviation ok.
> 
> Someone coming across the construct in an existing lynx.cfg can more
> immediately grasp what it's about (even if comments are stripped).
> Someone starting to *use* (write for) the extended functionality has
> to newly learn it anyway.
  
  I think that few people will use this feature  - mostly sysadmins - and that
sort of people can't be confused by things like this :) 

> Anyway, whatever you do, it should probably include the possibility
> of <">quoting<">.

 Please see my POV on quoting in reply to TD message (in which he gave the 
schedule for Saturday and Sunday ).

>      Klaus
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad