>
> > I've a handful of configuration/porting issues, but would like to make the
> > next patch a pre-release. That would incorporate only bug-fixes...
>
> Any chance of putting a short hold until the Visited Page discussion comes
> to some conclusion?
sure, if everyone else is busy talking about this one, I'll have time to
work on the configuration/porting issues.
> > * now check directly in postoptions() whether the loaded document is one from
> > which submission of option changes can be accepted, using the new tracking
> > mechanism. Only the form-based Options Menu and Visited Links are allowed.
>
> I am "uncomfortable" with starting a trend in proliferating the code with
> calls to postoptions(); someone is going to forget something sometime. It
> doesn't seem all that hard to hit 'o'.
it looks to me rather different: wrapping up some of the redundant code
and putting it into a slightly more orderly arrangement.
> I also question even the need to have the "tree style" as a runtime option.
> It seems sort of like a general preference to me, and not something that
> one's going to want to change half a dozen times in one lynx session. How
> about lynx.cfg?
>
> Was there a compile-time option to drop it? Like other EXP_ "features,"
> it ought to have one round off-by-default until the clamoring multitudes
> ask for it.
no - there was no ifdef (nor was there anyone complaining about it two weeks
ago, so I didn't ifdef it for dev.17). It's not complicated code, doesn't
change the executable size much, and isnt' a problem to port.
> __Henry
--
Thomas E. Dickey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
