Re: lynx-dev suggested addition to lynx.cfg

[Henry Nelson]

What the heck.

>  Yes, this is trivial for my tools since they are using C preprocessor - so 

It amazes me that you still miss the point.  It has nothing to do with how
well your tools do (or don't do :) their job.  It has to do with 1) their
necessity and utility, 2) their maintainability, and 3) their portability.

> tool that encloses entire lynx.cfg in <pre>

Seems you are guilty of what you often falsely accuse me of: not having
spent/wasted the time looking at what is there.

>  If Henry tool are chosen instead of mine, then you have to.

There is no my "tool" to be "chosen."  What you have is a _statement_
written in one lunch break (ca. 45 min while munching) that attempts
to deal with the maintainability and portability issues.  No sense
in wasting more time than that since no necessary or really useful
function is at stake.

What is missing from your equation is the variable "what happens to
Lynx when Vlad and Tom are long gone."  But that's quite obvious from
what you've said [paraphrased]: "once it's integrated and released,
who cares", "if it's broken, you fix it", "if you don't want it, you
don't have to use it", "no time to do that", "has to be done in three
days" and "lynx has become a hackers paradise."  (Not to mention the
more juicy ones like "let's send patches directly to the integrater
so as to avoid scrutiny" and "you're not a developer.")

If you had an ounce of decency you would stop trying to ram your
patches down the throats of us "end-user" peasants.

__Henry