Re: Physical keyboard events

[Cecilio Pardo]

On 07/11/2024 16:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: cpardo@imayhem.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 22:36:57 +0800
> >
> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> > > > From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> > > > Cc: cpardo@imayhem.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > > > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:25:53 +0800
> > > >
> > > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I already said that we could have both what you want and what Cecilio
> > > > > considers TRT.  Why do you keep arguing for your concept as the only
> > > > > one?
> > > >
> > > > Because the former is fatally hamstrung for many users, from whom we
> > > > will undoubtedly receive a spate of issues reporting that their modifier
> > > > keys are not producing activation events.
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying, but Cecilio and myself clearly
> > > disagree, so why not have both abilities in Emacs (assuming that it is
> > > possible and practical)?
> >
> > That would be redundant, since there is no key binding inexpressible
> > with the events I propose that can be expressed with events generated
> > from keysyms.
>
> It isn't redundant, since it reports different events from the same
> keys.

What about reporting an event, but with all pieces of information?

Alt_L Meta Meta_L

The 'keysym', the 'modifier' or nil, the 'sided-modifier' with an _L 
because the keysym has an _L, or nil.