lynx-dev new command format (was transport)

[Philip Webb]

990706 Klaus Weide responded: 
> 990706 Philip Webb wrote:
>> Lynx needs to adopt the system of Screen, Vi & other software,
>> having a basic `command mode' introduced eg by `:',
>> which then expects an explicit written-out lynxactioncode,
>> with easier keymapping -- eg in  .lynxrc  -- by the user.
>> then ALL commands would be accessible to everyone by using `:',
>> but users could choose their own personal keybindings as they wished.
> Once you introduce a `:', you're introducing a whole new language.

i don't believe so: see below.

> I assume allowing typing just one lynx action by name would be pointless.

i want to allow any lynxactioncode to be entered explicitly ...

> You want to combine several & pass parameters to them.
> You want to control what happens in case of errors.
> Then come conditional constructs and so on.

... but no more than that on the Lynx interactive command-line.

> You may not want all of that now, but to some varying degree,
> that seems to be what Screen, Vi & other software do,
> they all have their own (not-so-little if we include emacs) mini-language.
 
that's not what Screen & Vi do; i DON'T want to imitate emacs ... (grin)

at present, Lynx listens for a keystroke -- eg  a  or  m  -- ,
which it then interprets as a lynxactioncode according to keybindings
--  add_bookmark  or  main_menu  -- , which the user can vary in  lynx.cfg :
you are more familiar with the source, so you can much more easily tell me
where in the program it happens; Lynx then acts on the lynxactioncode.
generally, this works well enough, but problems arise from time to time
about default keybindings & about possibly running out of keys to bind.

if Lynx were to imitate Screen (are you familiar with it?),
it would continue to listen for keystrokes,
but the bindings would be more accessible to users via  .lynxrc
& hopefully thro' the Options Form (tho' that's not essential).
there would also be a single special keystroke, probably `:',
which would tell Lynx `the user is about to enter an explicit command';
Lynx would then accept & parse the input line to get a lynxactioncode,
eg `add_bookmark', spelled out just like that (without quotes).

what actually needs coding is simply the new `:' keystroke
& Lynx's ability to offer & parse the input line,
parallel eg to the input line for URLs with `goto' now.
this would allow new &/or minority-interest commands to be added
without being forced to decide a default binding,
obviously incl the recent issue you were debating about `t',
tho' ALL lynxactioncodes would be accepted via this mechanism
& they would be properly listed in Users Guide.
the 2nd part -- making it easier to alter keybindings -- can wait a while.

have i made it clearer?

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