Re: lynx-dev Command-line options and DOS [patch]

[Klaus Peter Wegge]

> For DOS only:
> 1. Nonstandard usage which sets a bad precedent. Users might come to
> expect this behavior on other programs where it is not supported.
> 
> For general code:
> 1. Keeps the ports of the various platforms as close in functionality
> as possible.
Yes. That's true!!!
> 
> 2. Make maintenance of the documentation simpler, since we don't need
> separate sections for platform specific commands.

> 3. Easier for those users who use lynx on various platforms (variant
> on reason #1).
> 
> 4. The ":" is already used as a separator for options in lynx.cfg
Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion.
In one of my dos batch files (DOS 6.22) I have a line like:
c:\lynx -auth=abc:xyz
I don't have a problem with the "=" in the DOS batch file.
Where is the problem exactly?
Additionally this example shows an curious variant:
c:\lynx -auth:abc:xyz

> So far, I am still in favor of making the ":" separator part of
> the general lynx code.
Don't like it, and I don't see a reason for this at the moment.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for a better
> character to use as separator on DOS, where the "=" is not passed by
> batch files?

But there is another problem in DOS.
The length of a commandline is restricted to 128 characters.
For this reason we should consider an option like
-file=optionfilename
which enables lynx to read options from an seperate file.
I know, this sound strange for an UNIX user, but is common technic in
DOS. But, if we do so, this mechanism should work in all OS.
And this solution solves both, the possible "=" problem and the
commandline restriction problem.

Regards

Klaus-Peter