From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 08:14:59PM +0000, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Alan Third <al= an@idiocy.org> schrieb am Di., 26. Dez. 2017 um 18:42 Uhr:
>
> > Do you think this patch is still good?
> >
>
> I think so, modulo the caveats mentioned in the comments. Do you want = me to
> rebase and commit it?
As far as I can tell from the comments with the patch installed we
should be no worse off than we are at the moment?
I can=E2=80=99t quite work this out from a quick look at the code, but is i= t
the case that when option or command is bound to meta or super then it
acts as a control=E2=80=90like modifier, but when it=E2=80=99s unbound then= it acts as
a shift=E2=80=90like modifier?
> If the latter, I'm not sure whether the macOS event model allows u= s to do
> this. As mentioned in the comments in the patch, some information just=
> appears to be lost entirely.
I recently found myself using this lovely binding:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (define-key global-map [C-s-268632064]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 'ns-do-show-cha= racter-palette)
and it seems crazy to me that the default behaviour of Emacs requires
us to use 268632064 instead of SPC when we could tell people using
unusual keyboard layouts to set a variable or something instead.
As for losing data, as long as it=E2=80=99s no worse than what we have at t= he
moment, which I believe you said is the case in a previous email, then
I don=E2=80=99t see a problem with that.
But perhaps I=E2=80=99ve misunderstood and there=E2=80=99s some worse behav= iour?