On Sep 6, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Michael Natterer wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 14:30 -0700, John Ralls wrote: >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Michael Natterer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 11:57 -0700, John Ralls wrote: >>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Michael Natterer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Michael Natterer <mi...@gimp.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 08:27 -0700, John Ralls wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ... imminent turf war ... ] >>>>>> >>>>>> this seems to be about two different things, neither of which are in >>>>>> conflict (and i think john actually agrees with this). >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) whether or not the Alt key should generate MOD1 as a modifier >>>>>> 2) whether or not code that wants to be cross-platform can assume that >>>>>> they can use MOD1 with its own chosen semantics >>>>>> >>>>>> the problem is that (2) includes GTK, not just applications, and GTK >>>>>> already makes this assumption. as a result, john changed the modifier >>>>>> that alt/option generates on OS X, because (2) is not true for OS X. >>>>>> >>>>>> if (2) was fixed so that GTK was not an example of code that assumes >>>>>> that MOD1 is free for any interpretation on any platform, then (1) is >>>>>> moot, and it really doesn't matter what the Alt key generates on OS X >>>>>> (hence, it could be MOD1). >>>>>> >>>>>> but as long as (2) remains an issue within GTK itself, its hard to >>>>>> argue that a key that has clearly different purposes for a large body >>>>>> of platform users of OS X should be handled by GTK as if it had some >>>>>> different meaning based on another platform. >>>>> >>>>> That's not what I'm asking for. The only special meaning of "Alt" >>>>> in GTK is to invoke mnemonics. Other than that, it's simply a modifier. >>>>> Same on the Mac, it's just a modifier. Let's just disable the mnemonics >>>>> on the Mac then. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that the OS uses it to generate special characters is >>>>> not really relevant here. One X11 window manager "steals" key >>>>> combo A from the app, the other one key combo B, there is nothing >>>>> I can do about this. >>>>> >>>>> Turning "Alt" into "Alt" fixes more than it breaks. It fixes e.g. >>>>> configuring GTK keybindings (you can easily make Alt-cursor do >>>>> word navigation then, the config file says alt, it's all correctly >>>>> mapped, the modifier says alt, and it just works). >>>>> >>>>> And it's not just key bindings. Alt-click should be alt-click, >>>>> there is nothing wrong about that. If the OS decides to use it >>>>> for its own purposes, then it's the job of higher-level code >>>>> to be aware of that. >>>>> >>>>> If we need to change something in GTK as a consequence of that >>>>> change, then so be it, but please let's not do strange stuff >>>>> to the quartz' backend's modifier mapping just to accommodate >>>>> some code in GTK that was never meant to handle the Mac, but >>>>> can easily be changed to simply do it. >>>> >>>> It's not really different. Getting rid of the hard-coded association >>>> between <alt> in an accelerator map or key binding and GDK_MOD1_MASK is >>>> part of Paul's (2). I'd map it to GDK_META_MASK, but I'm open to super, >>>> hyper, or a new GDK_ALT_MASK (bit 25, perhaps). It *is* the right thing to >>>> do, I think, but it's not a quartz-only change and it probably would not >>>> be welcome in gtk+-2.24. >>> >>> It is not the right thing to do. Why do you insist on that, >>> and what is wrong about the "hard-coded" association between >>> ALT and MOD1_MASK? What is the problem about fixing GDK to >>> map Alt to what is globally considered Alt, and then fix >>> the platform-specific things in GTK+ afterwards? >> >> >> For one thing, the platform-specific stuff belongs in Gdk. That's why >> there's gdk/broadway, gdk/quartz, gdk/wayland, gdk/win32, and gdk/x11. Yes, >> there are gtkdnd-quartz, gtkclipboard-quartz, gtkstatusicon-quartz, and (in >> quartz-integration) gtkselection-quartz. That's an unfortunate side effect >> of the main implementations being so closely tied to the X11 model that they >> couldn't be integrated with quartz at the gdk level, and it breaks the >> multiple-backend feature of Gtk+-3. >> >> For another, key-mapping is done in gdk as the very first step in processing >> a native key-down/up event (well, OK, the second step, the first being to >> decide that it's a key-down/up event and to dispatch it to the key-mapping >> routine). That is, of course, in a virtualized gdk function call. You're >> proposing to then reinterpret those key-down/up events in gtk? That seems >> rather complicated. > > I have no idea what you are talking about. > >> Nothing is wrong with <alt> being mapped to GDK_MOD1_MASK so long as >> NSCommandKey is also mapped to GDK_MOD1_MASK. Why do you object to that? Is >> it that the GIMP documenters don't want to write "(Command-foo on Macs)" >> next to every occurrence of "The accelerator for Bar is Alt-foo"? > > Why on earth would you want to map both keys to the same modifier? > > Nobody uses "Alt" for accelerators, I don't think we are talking > about the same things here, in GTK+: > > - Accelerator is the thing to invoke actions (menu shortcuts) > -> invoked by Command on the mac, and by Control on != Mac. > > - Mnemonic is the thing that invokes the underlined stuff > -> invoked by Alt on != Mac, doesn't exist on the Mac > > Where is the conflict here? We just need to make sure accelerators > are invoked by whatever modifier combination is triggered by Command, > and making it the same as the modifier triggered by Alt doesn't make > any sense. > > And just to finally say it, please spare us this aggressive undertone.
I quit. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
