On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 08:56, Ivan Pascal wrote: > > With the actual mode of implementation (not using the Lock modifier), > > yes, you don't have the problem of it affecting non-alphabetic keys. > > I would have the problem with "it affecting non-alphabetic keys" if I didn't > use the Lock modifier. There is not such problem because "the actual mode of > implementation" does use the Lock modifier. I tried to explain it in my > replies to Pablo.
I think you just have to realize that XKB is too complex for anybody to fully understand it without spending several hours a week on it. :-) > > However, you do have the problem that applications can't tell that > > the level change was produced by the caps-lock key. Which sometimes > > is useful information. > > > > For instance, the obvious fix for: > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115384 > > > > which is to strip out the Lock modifier before checking for accelerator > > matches, won't work. > > I am sorry for the repeating. > Did you try it before writing this? You really don't have to be rude. Just tell me to try it. I made the assumption that if I had read the relevant Xlib XKB code and read the relevant rules file, I would have some idea what was going on. A dangerous assumption when XKB is involved. Going back and rereading your mail and rereading the code, I see how it's being accomplished via the magic of consumed modifiers. But really, I don't feel bad about not figuring that out the first time. And I don't feel bad about not doing a bunch of practical experimentation. Life's too short. Too many other bugs to worry about. Regards, Owen _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
