Re: [patch 2/5] Renumber special keys to negative values,

Miciah Dashiel Butler Masters <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:21:25AM +0300, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
>> -	return (kbd->key < 0) ? -1 : 0;
>> +	return (kbd->key == KBD_UNDEF) ? -1 : 0;

>> -	if (kbd->key < 0) return;
>> +	if (kbd->key == KBD_UNDEF) return;

> Maybe this should be a separate patch.

They are related; negative values were previously not used.
It could be separated though.

>> -	/* The event might have been changed to a mouse event */
>> -	if (ev->ev == EVENT_KBD && kbd.key != KBD_UNDEF) {
>> -		copy_struct(&ev->info.keyboard, &kbd);
>> -	}
>> +	/* KBD_UNDEF here means it was unrecognized or a mouse event.  */
>> +	if (kbd.key != KBD_UNDEF)
>> +		set_kbd_interlink_event(ev, kbd.key, kbd.modifier);

> This should be in a separate patch.

I changed the test because now that the function uses
set_kbd_interlink_event, it no longer needs to rely on the
previous value of ev->ev.
It could be separated though.

>> +	/* Values <= 0x100 are special; e.g. KBD_ENTER.
>
> Shouldn't that be -0x100?

Yes, it should.

>> +#define is_kbd_fkey(key) ((unsigned long) (KBD_F1 - (key)) <= (unsigned long) (KBD_F1 - KBD_F12))
> [...]
>
> Does it need to be this cryptic? How about just:
>
> #define is_kbd_fkey(key) ((key) <= KBD_F1 && (key) >= KBD_F12)

Because the name of the macro is in lower case, I wanted to make
sure it does not have more side effects than a function would.
If you think it is too cryptic, then how about an inline function?

I probably won't be able to post revised patches today.

_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE0u+lHm9IGt60eMgRAuQUAJoDXV8Q5jzwUBy3psSz+bazFqw+owCgnHid
4gXh8iKtoqzK2oEYqKXdSys=
=KxWa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----