Dave Mielke (2017/08/23 17:33 -0400): > [quoted lines by Shérab on 2017/08/23 at 22:08 +0200] > > Hi: > > >Couldn't we imagine that the clients define command groups and commands by > >specifying their names and numerical values and then there could be > >tables similar to the core ones mapping braille keys to these > >client-defined commands? > > Of course, we can imagine anything we want. Some layer needs to own the value > space, though.
You mean to avoid collisions, i.e. one number having two meanings depending who interprets it? I thought this problem wouldn't exist because ta one moment, only one value space is "active". > If we want to have a base set of common commands then the core > needs to own the value space. Sure. > If we don't care then the client can own it. All > I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to design a paradigm that ends up with > a > needlessly huge amount of tables as that'll very quickly become totally > unmanageable. Sure. I guess in practice there won't be that many tables but I can't be sure. Shérab. _______________________________________________ This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list. To post a message, send an e-mail to: [email protected] For general information, go to: http://brltty.com/mailman/listinfo/brltty
