Re: [PATCH] w3m-cookie & w3m-cookie-clear

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@xxxxxxx>]

In [emacs-w3m : No.12685]
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:36:55 -0400, Boruch Baum wrote:
> Hello again,

> The attached patch covers two suggestion:

> 1] Function `w3m-cookie' opens in the current tab (buffer), which is
> okay for people who remember to back out of the page. My suggestion is
> to open the window in a new tab by default.

> 2] Function `w3m-cookie-clear' isn't coded to be interactive, which
> deprives users from clearing cookies simply from the command-line,
> which would be a desirable feature.

Both of them look reasonable and useful.  Committed.
I added a code to `w3m-cookie-clear' so that the `w3m-cookie' page
is cleared if it is visited.

> I didn't include code for the keybinding because I wasn't sure you
> would find it desirable.

How about M-<DEL>, i.e., the Lisp form [(meta delete)] ?

> 2.1] On a related point: If you want, I would be willing to code a
> feature to selective delete specific cookies. There are several ways
> this could be done: a] It could be a command line selection similar to
> what we did recently with `C-u f' for toggling individual filters; b]
> It could be an added feature to the current `w3m-cookie' buffer; c] It
> could be a separate screen for just deleting cookies, using the
> keybinding conventions of the emacs Ibuffer, so that multiple entries
> can be selected for deletion, and then actually deleted with a
> separate keybinding.

I've never thought about it but it sounds good.

> BTW - This is a feature I would very much like for deleting multiple
> tabs instead of having to repeatedly answer the y/n prompt for each
> deletion.

I found no `y-or-n-p' or the like in `w3m-delete-buffer', though
it's not a matter.  The feature deleting not only multiple tabs
but also multiple items in `w3m-select-buffer' would be nice.
I guess doing it in only `w3m-select-buffer' is easier and enough.

> I should have offered to code that in my earlier e-mail re:
> w3m.el, but I forgot. For that case, I looked at the code and it seems
> to have some strange use of tail-recursion, so the fix might need to
> change the use of that programming idiom.

> So that's two offers, for discussion. Get me when I'm available.