Hi, 2012/2/16 Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net>: > 2012/2/16 Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org>: >> 2012/2/16 Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net>: >>> Thanks, applied. Looks better, but what about standalone keysyms and >>> modifier masks? >> >> Thanks, but, 'standalone'? I'm not quite sure I follow ... > > I've been thinking about whether we should pull the keysym and > modifier defs from xproto into the xkbcommon namespace, so we can use > xkbcommon without the xproto files.
Yes, sorry, I'm with you now. Some of the changes I've been working on involve splitting X11-specific code out to separate API, so for the modifiers we can use virtual modifiers exclusively rather than relying on a mapping back to core modifiers and then using those X-specific defines. For the keysyms, I think it definitely makes sense to pull (at least a subset of) the keysyms into xkbcommon, and then make xproto depend on xkbcommon rather than vice-versa. Annoyingly though, this would also involve getting our own equivalent to X_EXPORT/WL_EXPORT and friends. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
