On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:50:04AM +0000, Mark Skilbeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 06:48:17PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:07:02PM +0000, Mark Skilbeck wrote:
> > I was asking for clarification. As long as a new twist on an existing
> > feature doesn't break older configurations, that's always a plus.
> I see. Yeah, I have been trying to think of a way to implement this cleanly
> that isn't going to break BC. My initial thought was to just have the extra
> text be defined as the text following the first space:
> ddg search query -> jump id: ddg
> extra text: search query.
> Does anyone really use jumps with whitespace in them? It would make it a lot
> easier to write.
well... a "jumps" file is a definition-list, which doesn't have a
way to specify by itself any parameters. Back to your original
suggestion, it's not clear how lynx is to choose the text that
is substituted in the "%s". For instance (assuming that lynx is
going to inspect the url and see that it has a place to add a parameter)
is it going to
a) prompt for input
b) pick the data from the current anchor
> > thanks (I like patches).
> I'll send the patch tomorrow. Are you guys using a VCS of any sort?