[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lynx-dev] important improvements

From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] important improvements
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:50:12 +0900
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:51:21PM +0200, PBM . wrote:
> Please look in LYMainLoop.c , mainloop func for handle_LYK_UP_xxx and
> for handle_LYK_DOWN_xxx and then look for handle_LYK_UP_TWO,
> handle_LYK_DOWN_TWO, handle_LYK_DOWN_HALF, handle_LYK_UP_HALF, notice

I'm no coder, but as a user going up or down two lines is important.

Isn't "handle_LYK_UP_xxx" about links, and "handle_LYK_UP_TWO" about
lines?  If it's not too much trouble, could you mention the default
keystroke bindings for those functions.  Thanks.

> To repeat from first post in this thread: I do not find scrolling by
> two always usefull, so let user change how many lines would be
> scrolled via SCROLL_STEP global variable which could be changed from

I agree that this could be used to combine handle_LYK_UP_TWO/HALF and
handle_LYK_DOWN_TWO/HALF.  However, isn't the problem as you say "not
... always useful"; which suggests "sometimes useful"?  Once set in
lynx.cfg, one is stuck with that setting for the session, while how
many lines one would want to scroll depends on the content of individual
documents.  In other words, aren't handle_LYK_UP_TWO/HALF and handle_LYK
_DOWN_TWO/HALF together a compromise to be useful in most situations?

In your original post I think you called these functions a waste of
CPU cycles.  Are you saying there is a more efficient way to code
those functions?  If so, a proposal/patch would be really helpful.


  "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
   the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
                                         -- me, March 1999

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]