|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
TCL(Tool Command Language) Scripting
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Painful disabling of autorepeat ?
Hi,
I'm wondering about the current idiom for disabling keyboard
autorepeat in Tk.
>From my tests it seems that autorepeated keys[*] always generate
Release-Press sequences with the same timesatmp (%t). So it seems the
only method implies setting up an very short [after] on Release,
cancel it on Press, and consider a true Release when it gets to
completion.
Questions:
- is it the best bethod ?
- what is a safe value for the timer (guaranteeing that it won't
complete *between* the notification of the two events) ? (a large
value delays the true Release notification).
-Alex
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > Hi, > I'm wondering about the current idiom for disabling keyboard
> autorepeat in Tk.
>>From my tests it seems that autorepeated keys[*] always generate
> Release-Press sequences with the same timesatmp (%t). So it seems the
> only method implies setting up an very short [after] on Release,
> cancel it on Press, and consider a true Release when it gets to
> completion.
> Questions:
> - is it the best bethod ?
> - what is a safe value for the timer (guaranteeing that it won't
> complete *between* the notification of the two events) ? (a large
> value delays the true Release notification).
> -Alex
helps?
uwe
On May 24, 5:10 pm, Uwe Klein <uwe_klein_habertw@t-online.de>
wrote:
Thanks, but (1) it is X-specific and (2) it is system-wide (I mean
display-wide).
In fact I'm not looking for an external workaround, I just want to
know if there's a better Tcl-only solution.
Otherwise, I think there's room for a TIP.
-Alex
* Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferri@gmail.com>
| From my tests it seems that autorepeated keys[*] always generate
| Release-Press sequences with the same timesatmp (%t). So it seems the
| only method implies setting up an very short [after] on Release,
| cancel it on Press, and consider a true Release when it gets to
| completion.
Check
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.tcl/browse_thread/thread/9431...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.tcl/browse_thread/thread/bdd...
HTH
R'
On May 24, 8:36 pm, Ralf Fassel <ralf@gmx.de> wrote:
Yes. So, basically, the answer is: "the recommended idiom is the
above", right ?
-Alex
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > On May 24, 5:10 pm, Uwe Klein <uwe_klein_habertw @t-online.de> > wrote: >>Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
>>>I'm wondering about the current idiom for disabling keyboard
>>>autorepeat in Tk.
>>http://www.flightlab.com/~joe/gutter/doc/xop-0.3/xop.html
>>helps?
> Thanks, but (1) it is X-specific and (2)
it is system-wide (I mean
> display-wide).
bind to <enter> and <leave>
> In fact I'm not looking for an external workaround, I just want to
> know if there's a better Tcl-only solution.
if it uses [package require] it can't really be external, can it?
> Otherwise, I think there's room for a TIP. > -Alex
uwe
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
> I'm wondering about the current idiom for disabling keyboard
> autorepeat in Tk.
> From my tests it seems that autorepeated keys[*] always generate
> Release-Press sequences with the same timesatmp (%t).
FWIW, on Windows you don't get a <KeyRelease> between autorepeated
<KeyPress> events. (Or at least I didn't get that when I tested!)
> So it seems the
> only method implies setting up an very short [after] on Release,
> cancel it on Press, and consider a true Release when it gets to
> completion.
Since the release is guaranteed to precede the press, what you could do
is just save the timestamp of the last release. Since that's just a
simple variable, it'll be easy to implement.
Another thing to check is whether the serial numbers are the same or
not; if they're the same, then that gives you an even better way of
detecting that it's not a real release/re-press. But I can't check that
on Windows for you; this is an area where it seems that the platforms
aren't precisely equivalent.
Donal.
* Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferri@gmail.com>
| So, basically, the answer is: "the recommended idiom is the above",
| right ?
Yes.
R'
On May 25, 11:28 am, "Donal K. Fellows"
<donal.k.fell @manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > > I'm wondering about the current idiom for disabling keyboard > > autorepeat in Tk. > > From my tests it seems that autorepeated keys[*] always generate > > Release-Press sequences with the same timesatmp (%t). > FWIW, on Windows you don't get a <KeyRelease> between autorepeated
> <KeyPress> events. (Or at least I didn't get that when I tested!)
Why this ?
> > So it seems the > > only method implies setting up an very short [after] on Release, > > cancel it on Press, and consider a true Release when it gets to > > completion. > Since the release is guaranteed to precede the press, what you could do
> is just save the timestamp of the last release. Since that's just a
> simple variable, it'll be easy to implement.
on the wiki) I also want a callback to be called on the Release event.
So I need the [after] in order to do something after the last Release.
> Another thing to check is whether the serial numbers are the same or
> not; if they're the same, then that gives you an even better way of
> detecting that it's not a real release/re-press. But I can't check that
> on Windows for you; this is an area where it seems that the platforms
> aren't precisely equivalent.
On Windows you've just said there was no fake Release, so here it
suffices to keep a flag recording the fact that we are in the Pressed
state...
So, the method with the equality of timestamps *and* the [after] works
in all cases and OSes.
But I'm far from saying I'm *happy* with such a kludge :^{
Ain't it TIPpable ?
-Alex
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
> But I'm far from saying I'm *happy* with such a kludge :^{
> Ain't it TIPpable ?
Since it is arguably a fault in the way Xservers handle key events, no.
TIPs don't apply to Xservers (unless they're written in Tcl, of course.)
Donal.
On May 26, 12:45 am, "Donal K. Fellows"
<donal.k.fell @manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > > But I'm far from saying I'm *happy* with such a kludge :^{ > > Ain't it TIPpable ? > Since it is arguably a fault in the way Xservers handle key events, no.
> TIPs don't apply to Xservers (unless they're written in Tcl, of course.)
script-level workaround. It would be both more efficient and easier
for Tcl developer to do it in C...
-Alex
* Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferri@gmail.com>
| What I mean is: it is frustrating to have to deploy such a
| complicated script-level workaround. It would be both more efficient
| and easier for Tcl developer to do it in C...
Being curious: how would it be easier in C?
R'
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
> What I mean is: it is frustrating to have to deploy such a complicated
> script-level workaround. It would be both more efficient and easier
> for Tcl developer to do it in C...
It would be more likely to happen if you were to suggest with a patch
instead of a vague complaint... ;-)
Donal.
On May 26, 2:22 pm, Ralf Fassel <ralf@gmx.de> wrote:
> * Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferri @gmail.com> > | What I mean is: it is frustrating to have to deploy such a > | complicated script-level workaround. It would be both more efficient > | and easier for Tcl developer to do it in C... > Being curious: how would it be easier in C?
That means: we write it in C, and immediately Tk becomes more
consistent across platforms. The common behavior becomes what's
already happening on windows: several Press and just one Release. So
the interested Tcl scripter just has to keep a flag to tell fake Press
from true ones.
-Alex
On May 26, 2:22 pm, "Donal K. Fellows"
<donal.k.fell @manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > > What I mean is: it is frustrating to have to deploy such a complicated > > script-level workaround. It would be both more efficient and easier > > for Tcl developer to do it in C... > It would be more likely to happen if you were to suggest with a patch
> instead of a vague complaint... ;-)
My original post was to rule out a cleaner solution; I hate wasted
efforts :-)
-Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add to del.icio.us |
Digg this |
Stumble it |
Powered by Megasolutions Inc