On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes > <lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote: >> Le 11/10/12 12:50, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >> >>> Regarding ticket http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8364, >>> >>> the following bind does not work for Michael (on Windows?): >>> \bind "S-C-parenleft" "math-delim ( )" >>> >>> It does work for me on Ubuntu. >>> >>> Michael found that the following does work >>> \bind "S-C-9" "math-delim ( )" >>> >>> but JMarc pointed out that this is not the right solution because it's >>> only for US keyboards and suggested >>> \bind "~S-C-parenleft" "math-delim ( )" >>> >>> This also works for me on Ubuntu, but not for Michael. >>> >>> Why do the two parenleft binds work on Ubuntu and not on Windows? >> >> >> I did not have time to look but the first thing to chck of course is whether >> the keyboard layouts are the same. >> >> We do not want to use S-C-9 anyway because it would not work on a non-US >> keyboard. >> >> But their may be a specific windows problem indeed. >> >> JMarc >> > > Any ideas on this? I'm not sure whether to try to go ahead with the > patch without that particular change or to wait until someone who > knows about bindings can look into this.
Assuming no one has time to look into this Windows-specific behavior, I propose the following, which would close #8364 (and I would open a separate ticket just for the particular bind issue): Can we add the following Windows-centric and US-keyboard-centric lines to sciword.bind? \bind "S-C-9" "math-delim ( )" \bind "S-C-0" "math-delim ( )" My argument is that already in the bind file we have \bind "C-9" "math-delim ( )" \bind "C-0" "math-delim ( )" so the bind file is already US-keyboard-centric in this sense. Also I don't think there's much of a cost to adding the lines because there is no other binding for S-C-9 or S-C-0. For example, on a French keyboard, if I understand correctly, S-C-9 would be like doing C-9 or S-C-ç, which is not intuitive but it does not seem incorrect to me because we are not overriding any other command. Any thoughts? Thanks, Scott
