Subject: Notification: incoming/189

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:51:45 -0600 (CST)

FVWM Bug Tracking notification

new message incoming/189

Message summary for PR#189
	From: [email-masked]
	Subject: modifiers, locks and mouse/key bindings
	Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:51:43 -0600 (CST)
	0 replies 	0 followups

====> ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS <====

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:24:41 +0100

On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 04:51:45AM -0600, [email-masked] wrote:
> >From [email-masked]  Mon Feb 22 04:51:44 1999
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> 	by larry.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA13129
> 	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:51:43 -0600 (CST)
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Full_Name: Benoit TRIQUET
> Version: 2.1.10
> CVS_Date: 
> OS: linux 2.0.34 (rh 5.1)
> X_Server: xfree86 3.3.3.1
> Submission from: (NULL) (216.100.248.201)
> 
> 
> I finally found why my window buttons would stop working after "some time",
> and why
> windows couldn't be activated when using click to focus.
> Actually "some time" is "once i have engaged num lock".
> It seems to me that locks shouldn't be taken into account when matching
> mouse or key
> bindings, or checking for focus change.
> I have little knowldedge in X or xf86, but it seems there is no practical
> way to
> know which modifiers are actually locks. And patching fvwm/events.c to
> remove Mod2
> through Mod5 from the used_mods mask is not very machine-independent.
> So i wrote a new fvwm command, ModifierLocks. Here is my addition to the
> manpage :

>...

I disagree that fvwm should ignore the locking modifiers. They are
defined to be modifiers and should be treated as such. On the other
hand this causes so much confusion that a command to configure this
might help quite a few people. The command in your patch should be
renamed to IgnoreModifiers. The description in the manpage has to
be modified too (it shouldn't talk about 'locking').

> +		case 'm':
> +		case 'M':
> +		case '1':
> +			modifier_locks_mask |= Mod1Mask;
> +			break;

I don't think meta and modifier 1 are necessarily the same. Correct?

> +unsigned int modifier_locks_mask;

Should be 'unsigned int ignore_modifiers_mask;' then.

> +    F_MODIFIER_L

F_IGNORE_MODIFIERS ?

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:53:33 -0500

> be modified too (it shouldn't talk about 'locking').

Of course, if someone wants to  ignore modifiers, xmodmap is the right
tool to use.  I don't think the patch is the right way to go.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:00:08 +0100

> tool to use.  I don't think the patch is the right way to go.

Yor're right, of course. We should write a short explanation in the FAQ
on how to do this (there already is a question about this, but only
a rather unhelpful answer).

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Pete Forman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:02:17 GMT

> I don't think meta and modifier 1 are necessarily the

The man page for VirtualBindings(3X) says:

  Mod1 refers to the first modifier key.  OSF/Motif requires that it
  correspond to either Alt or Meta.

-- 
Pete Forman
Western Geophysical
[email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Pete Forman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:42:30 GMT

Dan Espen writes:
 > > > I finally found why my window buttons would stop working after
 > > > "some time", and why windows couldn't be activated when using
 > > > click to focus.
 > > > It seems to me that locks shouldn't be taken into account when
 > > > matching mouse or key bindings, or checking for focus change.
 > > > I have little knowldedge in X or xf86, but it seems there is no
 > > > practical way to know which modifiers are actually locks. And
 > > > patching fvwm/events.c to remove Mod2 through Mod5 from the
 > > > used_mods mask is not very machine-independent.
 > > > So i wrote a new fvwm command, ModifierLocks. Here is my
 > > > addition to the manpage :
 > > 
 > > >...
 > > 
 > > I disagree that fvwm should ignore the locking modifiers. They
 > > are defined to be modifiers and should be treated as such. On the
 > > other hand this causes so much confusion that a command to
 > > configure this might help quite a few people. The command in your
 > > patch should be renamed to IgnoreModifiers. The description in
 > > the manpage has to be modified too (it shouldn't talk about
 > > 'locking').
 > 
 > Of course, if someone wants to ignore modifiers, xmodmap is the
 > right tool to use.  I don't think the patch is the right way to go.

I disagree.  For most people, the intuitive action of NumLock is to
affect the numeric keypad only.  It is a feature of X that NumLock is
the same as other modifiers and affects all keys.

AFAIK there is no way to use xmodmap to get NumLock to work in that
way**.  You can map the numeric keypad so that it is always numeric or
always cursor.  You cannot get the state to depend on NumLock without
that modifier showing up on the other keys.

It ought to be up to the applications, including fvwm, to ignore
NumLock on the other keys.  That, for better or worse, is the X way of 
doing it.

** I can suggest a method of doing that.  Bind the NumLock key to a
   program that calls xmodmap to toggle the bindings of the numeric
   keypad.  But this may confuse X applications that currently handle
   the numeric keypad appropriately.  It is generally a bad idea to
   use xmodmap to fix one client's problems as it affects all
   clients.

BTW, a trick I used to work around mwm's limitations was to bind the
mod2 buttons to a menu which consisted solely of the title "Please
turn off the Num Lock".
-- 
Pete Forman
Western Geophysical
[email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]