On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Frank de Lange wrote:
Those of you who have tried my tab/frames patch will know that I usually make all 'extra' features optional. This allows those who {do not {need|like}|can not afford} those features to leave them out of the resulting binary. However, it also makes the code somewhat more complex, as the optional features are enabled/disabled through conditional compilation (#ifdef/#ifndef....#endif). The space saved by leaving out tabs and frames is currently about 25 kilobytes (Kib, kB, KB, choose your acronym...).
I have gotten some comments on this, suggesting the removal of these conditional statements. This way, Dillo would ALWAYS have the extra features (tabs and frames).
Before I say 'yes' or 'no' to these suggestions, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.
So, speak up. Have a look at the code (look for #ifdef XHTML_DTD_... and #ifndef DISABLE_FRAMES) and tell me whether the savings in space are worth the added complexity...
Judging by previous threads in this list, a number of people seem to strongly dislike tabs, so it would seem that DISABLE_TABS is a good thing. (I personally disable tabs, but only because I use a tabbing window manager. I think having tab support in Dillo is a great thing.) I'm guessing almost everybody wants to have frames, so maybe removing the conditional compilation of frames is worthwhile for the sake of simplifying code. Thanks for all your work, Frank. Frames support is really nice for browsing groups.google.com. Paul