[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method |
Date: |
Fri, 14 May 2021 14:09:34 +0300 |
> Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:29:08 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>
> Cc: 48042@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> --- a/src/keyboard.c
> +++ b/src/keyboard.c
> @@ -3098,7 +3098,11 @@ read_char (int commandflag, Lisp_Object map,
> /* When we consume events from the various unread-*-events lists, we
> bypass the code that records input, so record these events now if
> they were not recorded already. */
> - if (!recorded)
> + if (!recorded &&
> + /* However, don't record events when a keyboard macro is being
> + defined and an input method is activated (Bug#48042). */
> + ! (! NILP (KVAR (current_kboard, defining_kbd_macro)) &&
> + ! NILP (Fsymbol_value (Qcurrent_input_method))))
Bother: AFAIK, current-input-method non-nil means the user activated
an input method, it doesn't mean we are in the middle of typing a key
sequence that will yield a character via the input method. That is, a
user could activate an input method, but still keep typing just ASCII
characters. So why is this condition correct here to avoid recording
input more than once?
This is why I tried to have a variable that quail.el binds while
actually processing keys. I'd appreciate some explanation for why
that didn't work 100% in the case in point (it still avoided recording
twice some of the keys, so it isn't entirely wrong).
Stefan, any comments?
Also, please avoid quoting a bug number in comments as a replacement
for explaining the code, unless the explanation would need a very long
and convoluted text. We should strive to make our comments
self-explanatory. (That some code was added/modified to fix a certain
bug is very easy to find out using "git log -L" and similar commands,
so a bug number is almost always redundant in comments.)
Thanks.
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Gregory Heytings, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Gregory Heytings, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Gregory Heytings, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/05/14
- bug#48042: 26.3; Macros don't work with french-postfix input method, Stefan Monnier, 2021/05/14