Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.2dev.25d-cpp.patch.gz

[Vlad Harchev]

On Wed, 12 May 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > > Nice. However, if this whole idea is to be useful to the people it is
> > > intended for, the content must be meaningful to _them_.
> > 
> >   What do you suggest except removing something? 
> 
> I have not suggested the removal of anything in this present thread.
> I suggest that if something is added, it ought to at least be meaningful
> and useful to a large majority of users.
> 
> >   Just FYI, I compiled lynx with color-style, so it's really ignored.
> 
> Now if this kind of information were supplied, then I would agree that
> there was some valuable added-on functionality, i.e., an analysis of
> interactions between configuration settings, compile time defines and
> run-time options.

 You'd better check this patch before attacking it.
 
> > the way it was configured." I don't know how to paraphrase the 2nd sentence 
> > - 
> > it means that this initializing the setting won't throw away the value it 
> > was
> > assigned before - ie COLOR is like UPLOADER, aggregate assigned values (to 
> > be
> > frankly, not exactly - it doesn't aggregate values in true sense). Anyway,
> > we can remove this sentence.
> 
> No.  This is exactly the kind of thing you do not want to remove.  I want
> you to explain what you are talking about in terms (I and) the ordinary
> user will understand.  I am asking you to tell me something I don't know.
> Just parroting back what is in the configuration file doesn't help me,
> different format or not.

 If it doesn't help you, it doesn't mean that it won't help anybody. To get
information from configuration files, user have to know how to use grep, or
even where configuration file is. Most of the users that use lynx under
DOS/Windows, and unix novices, (IMO) will appreciate this (if they 
change settings in configuration file).
 
> >    This can be useful for sysadms (they can't remember everything).
> 
> Consciencious sysadms will not have time to play with this.  They have
> patches prepared against, or replacements for, all of the configuration
> files at all stages from compiling to installation to invoking the binary.
> They will spend a few minutes skimming through CHANGES to see if they
> need to evaluate a new configuration parameter.  This is just a guess, but
> I suspect that most sysadms who install Lynx do it as a service to their
> clients, and are not devoted Lynx users themselves.

 But when someday their lynx will fail, they will really appreciate indexed
and categorized description of all settings ,with ability to get current 
values of the settings with the trace where they were initialized.

> >  Information about default can be useful for other people (to analyze the
> 
> And I wish they would use the Internet for that, not my disk space:
>      http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/current/lynx2-8-2/lynx.cfg
>      http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/current/lynx2-8-2/userdefs.h
> 
> >   Values of "scalar" settings are overwritten after each assignment, so it's
> > useful to have a trace of whether this setting was initialized. If you use
> > 'INCLUDE' directive in your cfg.files, then you won't know definitely where
> > (in which file) initialization happened.
> 
> I should have spoken up louder when the INCLUDE directive was stuck in,
> but I guess it's "hold your peace" now.  I see a snowballing effect here:
> the need for support functionality for already tacked on "luxury" items.

 You'd better check this patch before attacking it. It support 'INCLUDE' in
the special way - it won't choke on it, it will dump the following:
========================================
            Status of the setting INCLUDE (Lynx Version 2.8.2pre.2)

   INCLUDE is a special command accepted in configuration file. To see a
   list of configuration files that were read on this invokation of Lynx,
   [1]go here
    
     References:
   1. LYNXCFG://
======================================= 
 
> >  From my point of view, thing that is useful of part of the people, and not
> > harmful for others, should be considered useful and worth including it in
> > distribution. And you personaly, can don't install generated *.html files 
> > this
> > patch adds, and don't visit LYNXSETTINGSTATUS://*. But let's think on 
> 
> I sort of feel like I'm embarking on a trip by foot across the Gobi and
> this guy gives me a suitcase full of watches and tells me I can sell them
> for a bundle when I get across the border.  Yeah, right.

  IMO this is a bad analogy. I consider this as: 
 If you had an old English-(Some-Language) dictionary without indexes on the
right side of the pages, that was printed in 70s, and somebody made you a gift
- a colorful, nicely printed dictionary (for the same language and the
same number of words translated) with indexes.
  You say that you don't want to waste space in your bookshelf for it. But
others can really appreciate such gift.
 
> Seriously, I wish YOU would "consider" maintaining the patch for your own
> personal use.  I'm sorry to say that that is the conclusion of my evaluation.
> I am just one of the few hundred involved in lynx-dev, so you can rest
> assured that mine is not the final word.
> __Henry
> 

 OK, we can add a 'configure' switch that will turn of this functionality.

 And as for content of this url, it can depend on user level (ie
NOVICE,INTERMEDIATE or ADVANCED) to not confuse readers (but I don't think
it's reasonable).

 Best regards,
  -Vlad