Apologies for the accidental cross post. I intended to send it to idle-dev. I am sorry again :(
On 13 June 2014 20:11, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavhebli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like the keyseq validator to be reviewed. > > The diff file: > https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-diff > A sample test runner file: > https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-runner-py > > In its current form, it supports/has > modifiers = ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta'] > alpha_uppercase = ['A'] > alpha_lowercase = ['a'] > direction = ['Up',] > direction_key = ['Key-Up'] > > It supports validating combinations upto 4 in length. > > Please test for the above set only. (It will extended easily to fully > represent the respective complete sets. The reason it cant be done > *now* is the due to how RE optionals are coded differently in my > patch. See CLEANUP below). I will also add remaining keys like > Backspace, Slash etc tomorrow. > > # Cleanup: > If we decide to go ahead with RE validating keys as in the above patch, > > 0. I made the mistake of not coding RE optionals -> ((pat)|(pat)) same > for all sets. The result is that, extending the current key set is not > possible without making all RE optional patterns similar.(Read the > starting lines of is_valid_keyseq method). > > 1. There is a lot of places where refactoring can be done and > appropriate comment added. > > 2. I left the asserts as-is. They can be used in testing the validator > method itself. > > 3. The above patch still needs support for Backspace, slash etc to be > added. I decided to add, once I am sure we will use it. > > 4. I would like to know how it will affect Mac? What are system > specific differences? Please run the test-runner script on it and do > let me know. > > --- > My friend told that this thing can be done by "defining a grammar and > automata." I did read up about it, but found it hard to grasp > everything. Can you say whether it would be easier to solve it that > way than RE? > > Regards > > > > On 13 June 2014 17:15, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavhebli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13 June 2014 16:58, Tal Einat <talei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Saimadhav Heblikar >>> <saimadhavhebli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Just a heads up to both: I am writing a keyseq validator method. >>>> It currently works for over 800 permutations of ['Shift', 'Control', >>>> 'Alt', 'Meta', 'Key-a', 'Key-A', 'Up', 'Key-Up', 'a', 'A']. It works >>>> for permutations of length 2 and 3. Beyond that its not worth it IMO. >>>> I am currently trying to integrate it with test_configuration.py and >>>> catching permutations i missed out. >>>> >>>> I post this, so that we dont duplicate work. I hope it to be ready by >>>> the end of the day.(UTC +5.5) >>> >>> What is the method you are using? >> >> Regex. It is not something elegant. The permutations are coded in.(Not >> all 800+ obviously, but around 15-20 general ones.). The only >> advantage is it can be used without creating a new Tk instance. >> >> >>> >>> What do you mean by "permutations"? If you mean what I think, then I'm >>> not sure I agree with >3 not being worth it. I've used keyboard >>> bindings with more than 2 modifiers before, and we should certainly >>> support this properly. >>> >> I am sorry. I meant to write >3 modifier permutations. >> (i.eControl-Shift-Alt-Meta+Key-X is not covered. But >> Control-Shift-Alt-Key-X is.) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards >> Saimadhav Heblikar > > > > -- > Regards > Saimadhav Heblikar -- Regards Saimadhav Heblikar _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
