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

[Henry Nelson]

I had hoped that my participation would no longer be necessary in this
discussion, but I can see that my comments are being misinterpreted.  I
am NOT in anyway whatsoever evaluating or passing judgment on either
your English ability or your c coding skills.  I am asking one simple
question to the lynx-dev community, "Is it worth it?".  I am pleading
for more scrutiny on what is integrated into the distribution code set.

> > 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.

I'm sorry, but I did not see where _interactions_ were being explained.

> > > 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:

This is exactly what I am questioning.  IMO, the INCLUDE directive was
implemented with absolutely unwarranted complexity.  Quite frankly, I
believe Lynx to have been a better program without it *in the way in
which it was implemented*.  Being able to include finely tuned and
personalized configuration settings over the system defaults is wonderful,
but when it gets to the point that "you won't know definitely where (in
which file) initialization happened", then something has seriously gone
askew.  Rather than going through a bunch of shenanigans to not "choke on
it," I would prefer that you take a smaller bite, i.e., clean up the
INCLUDE directive to make it more sensible -- try to cure the disease not
the symptoms.

> > 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: 

I LIKE this.  It only goes to show that one should never lose a sense of
humor.

>  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.

Those others probably have a bigger house with more shelf space.  It's true
I don't really care much for leather-bound, gold embossed, rubricated,
concordance editions, but if I were allowed to throw away my old yellowed
and raggedy one so that I only had to keep one copy, I might just take the
fellow up on his offer, especially if the new one were printed on thinner
paper.

__Henry