Re: Alt vs Meta - Sun keyboard, redhat linux

[chengiz <chengiz@my-deja.com>]

On Jan 4, 5:47 pm, Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyba...@Web.DE> wrote:
> Am 04.01.2011 um 18:12 schrieb chengiz:
>
> > On Jan 3, 5:53 pm, Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyba...@Web.DE> wrote:
> >> Why do you think the Alt and Meta key modifiers have something to do
> >> with MS Losedos?
>
> > Where do I think that?
>
> Because you inserted the link to some  "Windows-Keyboard".
>
> > I think the missing piece is what emacs is doing with Alt_L, as in  
> > why it is not processing it as A-.
> > Here's my xmodmap output:
> > shift       Shift_L (0x32),  Shift_R (0x3e)
> > lock        Caps_Lock (0x42)
> > control     Control_L (0x25),  Control_R (0x6d)
> > mod1        Alt_L (0x40),  Alt_R (0x71),  Alt_L (0x7d)
> > mod2        Num_Lock (0x4d)
> > mod3
> > mod4        Meta_L (0x73),  Meta_R (0x74),  Super_L (0x7f),  Hyper_L
> > (0x80),  Meta_L (0x9c)
> > mod5        Mode_switch (0x5d),  ISO_Level3_Shift (0x7c)
> > I cant tell what to put in my xmodmaprc to make sure emacs behaves
> > correctly.
>
> Modifier 5 cannot be Meta, Super, and Hyper altogether.
>
> When you launch GNU Emacs with -Q, without any customisation, does it  
> still interpret Alt as Meta? If so, then my assumption about the  
> parity of the modifiers is wrong and it plays a role that mod1 is Meta  
> and mod2 or mod3 is Alt. Then Hyper and maybe Super can follow, but I  
> think Mode_switch is more important, since it's the compose key, which  
> allows to type ø as o / etc. Num_Lock can be pretty useless.
>
> In case Alt and Meta work correctly in 'emacs -Q', then something in  
> your or your system's customisation (init files) is exchanging them.
>

There is no difference with -Q, it still interprets Alt as Meta.