[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev syntax change - f not g |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:34:45 -0500 (EST) |
990302 Klaus Weide wrote:
> 990301 Kim DeVaughn & Laura Eaves discussed reversing 123 & 123g :
-- details snipped --
> I suggest that, if someone wants to do this,
> you not just switch the meaning of the suffixes "" and "g",
> but use a new suffix. I suggest "f" = "follow".
a good suggestion, already made by KD:
ie for "" & "g", we would have "f" & "".
of course, in the absence of KD, LE will have to code it ... (wry grin)
> On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Philip Webb enthused:
>> well said! backwards compatibility has not always been observed,
>> eg when occasionally someone has decided a new spec requires a change
>> in well-established behaviour: examples omitted to avoid distraction.
> [ and more in the same vein omitted ]
not really: the remainder of the discussion covered Option possibilities.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
- Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change, Laura Eaves, 1999/03/01
- 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, 1999/03/01