On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:06:18PM +0100, Balazs Kezes wrote: > On 2014-05-23 12:48 +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > I think this can be made neater by making xterm_keys_modifiers do all > > the work directly rather than searching for the _ all over again, > > please look at this: > > Yes, this approach looks much nicer, thanks! Two nits: > > > + if (buf[*pos] < '0' || buf[*pos] > '9') > > + return (-1); > > + flags = buf[(*pos)++] - '0'; > > + if (buf[*pos] >= '0' && buf[*pos] <= '9') > > + flags = (flags * 10) + (buf[(*pos)++] - '0'); > > You will need a "flags -= 1" after this because for some weird reason > this bitmask has an offset of 1. Without this tmux generates different > escape sequences than what you get in xterm.
Yes, you're right. > > + if (flags & 16) > > + *modifiers != KEYC_ESCAPE; > > s/!/|/ otherwise this has no effect. But why is checking the fifth bit > needed at all when we only have 4 modifiers? Whoops, I thought we were adding one but we already handle both meta and alt, just couldn't parse them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The best possible search technologies are now affordable for all companies. Download your FREE open source Enterprise Search Engine today! Our experts will assist you in its installation for $59/mo, no commitment. Test it for FREE on our Cloud platform anytime! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=145328191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ tmux-users mailing list tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmux-users
