Re: lynx-dev [PATCH 2.8.3.dev6] various fixes

[Vlad Harchev]

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > * Add lynx.cfg configuration setting like NO_ANCHOR_NUMBERING_IN_PSRCVIEW
> >   (seems this is most straightforward) - I'll probably try it today (I don't
> >   promise)
> > 
> > * Add lynx.cfg setting like NO_LINKS_IN_PSRCVIEW - (seems to be
> 
> PLEASE STOP adding all these lynx.cfg settings.  Lynx.cfg is already so
> large that NO newcomer in his right mind would bother to read it, much
> less try to understand or use it.  It has become so large that some
> people on strict disk quotas wouldn't dare experiment with it.

 The discussion was about adding either of the settings, so adding one more
setting won't make harm or won't double the size of lynx.cfg.

> I propose that from now on, all new settings to lynx.cfg should be on
> a strictly ONE setting per function basis.  For example, ALL of the
> psrc stuff should be controlled by one setting, PSRCVIEW.  Fine tuning
> then could be done by additional parsing of arguments, e.g., PSRCVIEW:
> NO_ANCHOR_NUMBERING and PSRCVIEW:NO_LINKS.

 This will prevent the use of the extended INCLUDE syntax - if a lot of
settings are hidden behind one mega-setting, then sysadim will be able to
either permit or prohibbit only all of them - IMO this is the loss of
precission.

> There is no excuse other than laziness and sloppiness for junk like
> the HTMLSRC_* fiasco.

 I agree that they are slightly inconsistent, but since all of them are
documented in one paragraph, newcomer will simply skip entire paragraph when
reading, so IMO there is no difference for newcomer in the form of these
settings - either hidden in HTML_PSRC or being a separate settings as they
are now. They are somewhat ugly, but IMO it doesn't prevent any newcomer from
reading lynx.cfg.


> __Henry
> 

 Best regards,
  -Vlad