Dirk Wallenstein пишет: >> And I just suggest to implement the option I mentioned earlier. I think >> it is not hard to do but I'm not entirely sure... So it would be nice if >> someone knowing the XKB code confirm my guess. >> > > The thing is, and I guess you have seen that, is that the handlers are > missing the differentiation between Press/Release altogether. If you > could fix that you can use XkbFilterRec to store a flag. I think just > going more global is not the right thing to do here. Well, I considered to set up another filter via XkbFilterRec and _XkbApplyFilters() but xkbi->filters is a vector. If one need to cancel the delay switching then the vector have to be gone all round to deactivate the filter. I think another flag in xkbi->state is more natural.
> > xkbActions.c needs a decent overhaul and I will do that as soon as I can > switch to XKB programming more comprehensively (my current work has a > completely different set of requirements, and I would prefer to do one > after the other). > > I have a list of ideas, of what could be part of a future XKB, and > switch-group-on-release is on there. I haven't had the canceling thing. > You want to cancel the group-switch if any unrelated key is being > pressed, right? Also, another modifier? Yes, you meant right, unrelated key/another modifier/whatever. But I've found out how to do it yet, the right way. > > But don't let this stop you from improving xkbActions.c. > > You might want to base that on a current version. > > Greetings, Dirk. > I would like that option doesn't make any side effect on XKB despite itself. There are much not so clear code in XKB out there for me, like XkbCharToInt(v)... But I want to try to fix the issue. Regards, Ilya _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
