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

[Vlad Harchev]

On Thu, 13 May 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> 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.
  
 I thought that you are able to guess why "ignoring" happened, so I didn't
explain it. Sorry.

> > > > 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.

 Why should I "clean up" INCLUDE directive? First, it will break backward
compatibility. Second, it's a really powerful tool. If you hurt yourself with
a knife, that doesn't mean you should throw away all knifes in home - you will
be unable to do some things without knifes - just use them carefully enough.

> > > 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.

 It's your problem whether to take the gift, but you shouldn't ask this guy to
stop offering this gift since you consider it useless for others.

> __Henry
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad