[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev [2.8.1] why no bold links?
From: |
Larry W. Virden |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev [2.8.1] why no bold links? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 06:37:27 -0500 (EST) |
From: Tim Benham <address@hidden>
> I still think it should be possible to implement some recovery
> behavior for the situation where there's a broken gcc in the path,
> though I realize this may be a configure issue not a lynx one.
Only the first compile should need to do this - someone asked earlier
in the thread if one needed to backtrack - but the issue isn't so much
'if a test fails, try a different compiler' but 'add a test to see if what
the name of the working compiler is'. Defining how to determine that the
compiler is working can be as simple or complex as deemed necessary - if
it 'compiles' 'main(){}' is that sufficient?
--
Larry W. Virden <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
<URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- "No one is what he seems."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
- Re: lynx-dev [2.8.1] why no bold links?, (continued)
Re: lynx-dev [2.8.1] why no bold links?, dickey, 1999/03/10