Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change

[Philip Webb]

990228 Kim DeVaughn wrote: 
> it should be easy enough to allow *either* 123+g or 123g+ to be valid,
> with an additional line or three of code (just a bit of peeking ahead
> at the char following the initial "+" or "g", etc).

of course, ... (red face): then there's no need to count votes,
as everyone is satisfied.  can LE or KD arrange this between them?
ie entering  3+g  or  3g+  would have the same effect;
 3+  &  3g  would remain unaltered.

> *Requiring* a leading 0 however, is obtuse,

JP appears to have withdrawn support, so it seems no-one wants that now.

> Finally (since you're fiddling with the interface anyway),
> *I* would really like to see a way to avoid having to enter "g" at all,
> since most often, I want to move to a link before activating it.
> For those few times I *do* want to immediately follow the target link,
> adding (say) an "f" to the link number wouldn't be a problem for me.
 
this was discussed at the time  123g  was introduced,
but the whole idea of the innovation ruffled so many dyed-in-the-feathers
that possible variants were left in the dust.
IMHO it would be kinder to users to reverse the current usage:
 123  would simply move the hilite to [123] on whatever page,
while  123g  would also take off for that link;
i seem to remember DITFs objected that they frequently wanted
to goto link [123] while keeping their place at link [3];
there may even have been some resistance to the very idea of numbering links,
but it's all so long ago ...

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto