On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > Thomas Dickey wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 3:58=A0pm, "Paul B. Mahol" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> --- Terminal keys --- >>>>> t_kl <Left> =A0 =A0 =A0^[O*D >>>>> t_#4 <S-Left> =A0 =A0^[OD >>>>> <xLeft> =A0 =A0 ^[[1;*D >>>>> t_kr <Right> =A0 =A0 ^[O*C >>>>> t_%i <S-Right> =A0 ^[OC >>>>> <xRight> =A0 =A0^[[1;*C >>> >>>> Thus the shifted cursor keys are defined wrong. >> ... >>> key ku: ^[OA >>> key kd: ^[OB >>> key kr: ^[OC >>> key kl: ^[OD
(left-arrow) >>> key #2: ^[OH >>> key #4: ^[OD (shifted left-arrow) >> That's consistent with vt220 keyboard setting. >> (I don't see any modified keys). >> >> In patch #238, I modified xterm to not return >> anything for tcap-query if it finds that it's >> a modified (e.g., shift) key which does not differ >> from the unmodified one. >> >> That seemed to help vim not get confused between >> modified/unmodified keys which were returning the >> same strings. > > Yes, well, the question is who is resposible for detecting that the same > key code is used for multiple keys. For Vim it would have to guess what > the key means. Dropping the shift modifier seems logical, but requires > a table to know which codes normally include a modifier. > > Solving this in xterm sounds like the best idea. It basically means > that the shifted key isn't distinguished from the unshifted key, thus > doesn't actually work and thus should not have a termcap entry. > > Double checking: I don't have to do anything for Vim? no - it looks as if that's generated by xterm before patch #238. (I don't see the patch number in the discussion). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
