Re: Physical keyboard events

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 20:49:37 +0800
> 
> I posted this twelve hours ago, but it was truncated in transmission.
> 
> Cecilio Pardo <cpardo@imayhem.com> writes:
> 
> > We would respond to XK_Caps_Lock by sending an event with the symbol
> > 'capslock, and to Control with lctrl and rctrl. If the control key is
> > unavailable beacuse it serves another purpose, then user should not
> > bind it to anything.
> 
> This would prevent any portable Lisp program from being written that
> exercises this feature.  For example, your patch only handles Alt_L and
> Alt_R, while the key _labeled_ alt on the right side of my keyboard is
> mapped to ISO_Level3_Shift.  The purpose of detecting left and right
> keys is defeated anyway by such rudimentary treatment of the X keyboard
> system.
> 
> > I don't think this is incorrect in any way. We are giving the user the
> > ability to detect this keypresses.  It's up to the user to decide if
> > she wants to do it or not.
> 
> I don't agree.  Users may be completely excluded from deciding this
> question if they are installing another person's Lisp, for example.
> 
> > So I can bind a different command to each one of them.
> 
> Why can't you read the modifier map _first_ (by keycode, not keysym),
> before trying to distinguish between left and right keys by inference
> from the keysym, or by reading the keyboard geometry if XKB is
> available?  And report key events such as `meta' and `right-meta'?

I already said that we could have both what you want and what Cecilio
considers TRT.  Why do you keep arguing for your concept as the only
one?