Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | José Matos wrote:
| > | > On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > | >> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| > | >> with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
| > | >> an older systems.
| > | >>
| > | >> Jose feel free to do what you want.
| > | >
| > | > What is the outcome of your email exchange with Helge and Lars on
this
| > | > subject?
| > | >
| > | > This is an area where that looks like a landmine area, you step in
the wrong
| > | > place and ...
| > | >
| > | >> Peter
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | I'm pretty sure what's going on when my patch "eats" key events.
| > | Currently only pageup/pagedown key events are dropped.
| > | But JMark wants a more general approach so that also key gets
| > | dropped which are mapped by a binding to the scrolling keys.
| > | I don't know if Lars' patch is better.
| >
| > My patch works for all "key" variants. that is entered through
| > auto-keying. Basically all key events that we failt to handle because
| > auto-repeat is too fast are dropped.
| >
|
| And no keys will be dropped?
If you go aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab
then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
But sure, quite a few aaaa will be dropped. (which is just what we
want if we are too slow to get them in.)
| We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
| Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
| call?
If I remember correctly, that call did the wrong thing.
--
Lgb
