[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:17:10 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.95 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
I'm very sorry to being late to join this thread.
In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> > Because the way the event is decoded through read-key-sequence is not
> > necessarily the same. E.g. while ?<encoded-?> may get turned into ??,
> > it
> > may be the case that ?\M-<encoded-?> stays unchanged.
> > How does that happen?
> See the OP. It seems that encoded-kb.el has such a limitation (it should
> probably be considered as a bug, but there may be good reasons for it,
> I don't know).
At first, encoded-kbd-mode is designed to be used in the
case that Emacs is invoked with -nw, and it uses
key-translation-map to handle character events from 0 to 255
(that's all what happens with -nw).
I think the following diagram is the right thing to do:
window-system terminal
| |
| window event | character event 0..255
| |
handle_one_xevent keyboad-coding-system decoder
\ /
\ lispy event /
\ /
\ /
read_char
|
input method
|
keymap
And, it's in my todo list to abolish encoded-kbd-mode and
implement keyboard-coding-system decoder in C for long, but
unfortunately I still don't have a time to do that.
> > Maybe that is a bug; if so, we should fix it.
> That's what this thread is about supposedly.
> > We could recommend that people write (meta ?<encoded-?>).
> > That would eliminate this particular problem, right?
> No. It would make it work on those systems which have the bug (e.g. w32
> right now), but would not work on systems where read-key-sequence correctly
> decodes such a key-combination into ?\M-é.
As shown in the previous diagram, I think it's a bug of w32
code if it doesn't convert such an event as ?\M-<encoded-?>
into ?\M-é because only a window system generates such an
event and knows how to encode it.
> > These do not make things perfect, but I think they might be enough
> > to enable users to get reliable results. What do you think?
> I don't think it'll really be reliable, but we can definitely provide
> guidelines and hints.
One guideline is not to use encoded-kbd-mode on window
system.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, (continued)
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, David Kastrup, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/03
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/03
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/04
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/05
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/11
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/12
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence,
Kenichi Handa <=
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/12
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Kenichi Handa, 2007/03/13
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/13
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/19
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Kenichi Handa, 2007/03/19
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Kim F. Storm, 2007/03/19
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/25
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Kenichi Handa, 2007/03/26
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/26
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Kenichi Handa, 2007/03/26