[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change
From: |
Jacob Poon |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:39:19 -0500 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 1999, Laura Eaves (address@hidden) said:
> |
> | I've also been thinking 123+ and 123- without g or p should be
> | outlawed as the user is less sure of the destination link when
> | typing relative numbers. Any thoughts?
Outlawed? That is not a good idea. However, this kind of syntax can be
used to specify a link, or a page (or anything else that can be
serialized). But for now, when trailing g or p is not used, the number
should refer to a link #.
> *Requiring* a leading 0 however, is obtuse, IMO, though it too could
> probably be made optional (doing so would probably require more than
> a line or two of code, since 0 is recognized as a command in and of
> itself (F_LINK_NUM), even when link numbering is turned off).
Actually, the leading 0 is not, and should not be a requirement. The
leading 0 came into play because LE was talking about the actual keystroke
sequence for activating the feature (ie using '0' to do F_LINK_NUM),
instead of the actual chararcters to be entered when the prompt appears.