[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOM
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE
Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:58:28 +0500 (SAMST)
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > I don't understand how new setting would be done as suboption, if we want
> > to
> > preserve backward compatibility. Please give me hints.
> > We can't just allow things like
> > SOURCE_CACHE:MEMORY
> > SOURCE_CACHE:FOR_INTERUPTED:TRUE
> > - syntax doesn't allow this or will require a very intensive code changes
> > and will just confuse users more than one additional option
> > SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE.
> > Also, I wonder - what's the difference for the user between suboption and
> > new option? We have to document both.
> Less top-level options.
I don't think that programmer's efforts on implementing support for such
rather complex syntax for this option worth getting rid of another new
Also, grouping several options under one toplevel reduces flexibility of
controlling options using extended INCLUDE directive syntax.
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE, Henry Nelson, 2000/04/08