Re: lynx-dev Re: lynx.cfg bloat (was various fixes)

[Heather]

> > I suspect that this might be difficult to do across all the platforms
> > that support lynx, and that even if done, there would be little
> > assurance that such an interface would be maintained in the long term.
> > Would this mean that for each change in available lynx options someone
> > would also have to update the interface program?

Yep.  Essentially in order to work consistently, the interface program would 
also have to be part of the build tree - a generated TCL or perl script, for 
instance.  (An interpreted language would help us generate it as "data" ... 
and help it be portable, though that, too, is a problem.)

The tradeoff here would be bloat at the source and build level, for the ease
of tossing away the configurator at the user level.  Risk would be finding
some people can't configure it, since the docs were tossed.  That seems
to be a risk anyway, even when they're really docs, or even right there
in the same file.  At least the lynx.cfg would remain puretext, for the
hand-hacking sysadmin in a hurry.  (shrug)

> If a global change were inevitable at some point in the future - say the
> year 2525 - it would not be unreasonable that a .cfg file could define both
> the interface and the settings in an elegant manner (perhaps by including
> generic types).

Implies you want more info in the config - usable by something outside of 
lynx as well - not less.

Sorry, doesn't sound like a win yet...

> As an aside, it seems to me that the *nix community is bound to never create
> its own file standards, and to forever rely on archaic "self-documenting"
> methods. Perhaps that will change once the sun sets on this generation...
> perhaps not. A standardization of "resource wrappers" would not be
> unwelcome.

Hmm.  Sounds like what you really want is a control file for TDG (the dotfile
generator) ... or one of the other GUI configurators that's cropping up.
Oh no, not another control file :D

* Heather