Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:

[Henry Nelson]

> Well maybe the "typical" user is better off doing either one or the
> other.  (Which on Unix means "don't touch userdefs.h".)  I still don't
> see why mixing should be actively discouraged.

Well, I certainly trust your judgment more than my own on such issues,
so I'll be quiet.  Also, from Tom's silence I must assume I am incorrect.

> But *you* used the ominous expression "better be prepared for the
> consequences", so I am wondering what consequences you had in mind?

The consequences that I *thought* might occur by defining something manually
in userdefs.h that had been designed to be defined by the configure script.
It *seemed* to me that "going behind autoconf's back," i.e., attempting to
forcibly override, could quite possibly break the script or its product.

__Henry