[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.4dev.19
|
From: |
Thomas Dickey |
|
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev lynx2.8.4dev.19 |
|
Date: |
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:48:36 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:28:46PM -0800, Rob Cameron wrote:
> I think there is still one remaining problem in the restrictions
> table of LYUtils.c: the boolean values of some "can" fields need
> to be negated. A value of TRUE for this field for a particular
> restriction would mean that the restriction is set to false by the
> line
> *(restrictions[i].flag) = !restrictions[i].can;
> when the "default" or anonymous restrictions are set. But in each
I noted that the table shows the (pre)existing behavior - and in theory tend
to agree with your assessment, but am curious if anyone who is using it
in anonymous mode can explain why those items are set that way.
--
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden