From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Terminal or keyboard decoding system? Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87tuigck4h.fsf@gmail.com> <87ee9epsy2.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ravi R Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 24 15:08:45 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mTkwW-0004Ih-9Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 15:08:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36420 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mTkwU-0003K5-7e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:08:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mTkvM-0000qc-MR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:48213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mTkvI-00072E-S7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:30 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 28B0F44018F; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C205440398; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1632488844; bh=uSVbKwABM0XartMOd9BAQ2XlqO6aDdTeuyhAt2+roqA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=C+ISPRUEMdiyeWwxXnubs/xay6ZsuzSH59bRXzboJUrT2aagzYtkZphrCc5jnDmTF zsqBCQwyUIpWZOUzEN5IgdNm66eMdmpCQaA3K2X2cCahqEiI5UCa2a561J8Evx5UtO i8BwP2/pVLncgq1jFYwZkl10SSnQpBcnTA2Q/VvR7L+fN3R5bTw94lCkGY8k0QpiCm sVfCvy/id2PNC9bGwJ+hbJIiFsJWoOXkUyAsbP5paWkWiIBRHobXk6h5L7Sm+bykxc ZDPlJq9spzQl00qU61ScqWH6npjjn/AbTvl5M4gKoSq22LzzQnMo8Cu/UoPPbe24Wi +c76AtXQgTZ4A== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A01F12001E; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:07:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ee9epsy2.fsf@gmail.com> (Ravi R.'s message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:05:37 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:275396 Archived-At: >> BTW, why use `read-char-exclusive` rather than, say, `read-event`? > Fantastic catch! I did not know that `read-event` could be used here; > after replacing `read-char-exclusive` with `read-event`, two days of > emacs use has not resulted in the keystroke interleaving problem. > Why does this work better? I have no idea and I suspect noone else does either :-( >>> 1. Is modifying input-decode-map and key-translation-map the right >>> approach? >> Yes (tho `key-translation-map` is better avoided, but sometimes it's >> the only option). > Why should it be avoided? I haven't run into any issues, but it'd be > good to know. Because it applies after `function-key-map`, and the interaction between the two can be ... disappointing in corner cases. Stefan