On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:42:12 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > Am Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:22:29 +0900 (JST) > schrieb Teika Kazura <[email protected]>: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:58:10 +0100, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: >> > ;; exec true when NumLock is OFF >> > KP_Left '(system "true &") >> > >> > ;; exec true when NumLock is ON >> > N-KP_Left '(system "true &") >> >> Yes, it'll be great. (Thanks for explanation I omitted :) I meant that >> someone else may like NumLock gets ignored, so that both KP_Left and >> NumLock-KP_Left are treated as "KP_Left". (This is the current >> Sawfish.) > > X-KP_Left ? or NI-KP_Left ?
Sorry, I don't understand your question due to lack of my X knowledge. If it's worth discussion, could you explain it? Thank you in advance. Teika (Teika kazura)
