[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change
From: |
dickey |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:53:53 -0500 (EST) |
> > Depends on where u want the bloat -- configure, lynx.cfg, option
> > screen, binary size, source code size/complexity.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Binary size is a relatively straight forward and tangible place to
> start. It benefits some, does not harm others.
>
> > Adding a configure-time option would necessitate ugly ifdefs.
>
> Personally, I think code bloat is more "ugly."
if it's done right, the ifdef's aren't very noticeable.
> __Henry
--
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
- Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change, Philip Webb, 1999/03/02
- Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g, Klaus Weide, 1999/03/02
- lynx-dev Re: syntax change - f not g, Kim DeVaughn, 1999/03/02
- Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g, Philip Webb, 1999/03/02
- Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g, Klaus Weide, 1999/03/02
- Re: lynx-dev syntax change - hidden links digression, Klaus Weide, 1999/03/02
- lynx-dev NNN <something-or-nothing> (was: syntax change), Klaus Weide, 1999/03/02
- lynx-dev Re: NNN <something-or-nothing> (was: syntax change), Kim DeVaughn, 1999/03/02
- Re: lynx-dev Re: NNN <something-or-nothing>, Philip Webb, 1999/03/02
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change, Henry Nelson, 1999/03/01
Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change,
dickey <=