On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:56:11PM -0400, Dave Mielke wrote: > [quoted lines by S. Massy on 2011/10/25 at 19:14 -0400] > > >Excellent! It now works, thanks. > > Well ... there's nothing like checking the code. :-) > > >While I'm on the line: Is there a specific way in which commands are > >mapped when two definitions concur? E.G, if I keep > >"RoutingKey+!RoutingKey COPYCHARS" as a statement, would both FWINRT and > >COPYCHARS be executed? Is there some kind of precedence of execution > >going on here I should be aware of? > > Yes, and no. If you bind a given key combination to two commands, it's > undefined as to which one you'll get. Preference is given, however, to that > which is more specific. Your explicit bindings, therefore, will take > precendence to the general binding for COPYCHARS, so COPYCHARS will work for > any two routing keys which you haven't yet made an explicit binding for. > That's > the way it's supposed to work, anyway. If it doesn't, please do let us know. That's indeed how it works, and is a very sound scheme. Perhaps to be noted, however, is that a narrow definition will still be superseded by a broader one if the later is set for immediate exec ution by the ! prefix.
Cheers, S.M. _______________________________________________ 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://mielke.cc/mailman/listinfo/brltty
