Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I do not agree with this:
> - kbmap->bind("S-Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> - kbmap->bind("S-ISO_Left_Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> + kbmap->bind("~S-Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> + kbmap->bind("~S-ISO_Left_Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> + kbmap->bind("~S-BackTab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
>
> Basically, you are killing the binding of Tab to LFUN_CELL_FORWARD.
Why? Isn't this bound to "Tab" (without Shift)? That's at least how it used to
be and it still works here. Though I don't know if "~S-Tab" (and
"ISO_Left_Tab" without Shift, for that matter) make any sense at all.
> Here, shift-Tab gives ISO_Left_Tab, so what you write is correct.
>
> Therefore the code for tabs (which is currently in two separate
> chunks) should be IMO:
>
> kbmap->bind("~S-Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_FORWARD));
> kbmap->bind("~S-ISO_Left_Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> kbmap->bind("~S-BackTab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> kbmap->bind("~S-C-Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_SPLIT));
>
> Do you agree?
So is "Tab" the equivalent of "ISO_Left_Tab" on your System? Then why not
kbmap->bind("Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_FORWARD));
kbmap->bind("~S-BackTab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
kbmap->bind("~S-ISO_Left_Tab", FuncRequest(LFUN_CELL_BACKWARD));
> I am not even sure the ~S- is needed, actually.
Me neither. I just noticed that it is being used everywhere.
Jürgen
> JMarc
