On 11 Apr 2002 10:43:44 +0200 wrote Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Jacarandá <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Alexandre> Yes, I use brazil2.kmap > > OK, OK. So now we know where the problem comes from. > > So can you see a reason why the kmap has been set like that for > brazilian? I am wary of reverting it if there was an actual reason, > and I bet the original author had one. > > Why did you choos brazil2 instead of brazil.kmap? What's the > difference in terms of ease of use? Are there of brazilian > users out there who could comment? Well, I am not brazilian, but my 2 cent are these: In very old times, German typewriters had a dead key, that did print ´ or ` (= Shift-´) but did not move the carriage. For â, one would press ´`a or `´a. In old DOS times, where the compose key was unknown, many keybords and/or editors were configured to mimic the dead keys. Pressing a dead key will result in "nothing", only after the next keypress you get as result: accented characters when applicable (e.g. á,à,â) just the symbol if pressed twice the symbol and the next char, if the next char cannot be accented (e.g. ´x) (if I remember right from my DOS days) If I am right, this is also, what the Linux console does with e.g. de-latin.map as opposed to de-latin-nodeadkeys.map. Dead keys save you one keystroke compared to the Compose key, at the cost of an additional keytroke for the "pure" accent. Hoewver, it would be very unconvenient to have the komma as a dead key. This is why an already "dead" key is used for ç (also if this is not as mnemonic as ´a for á, say) As LyX uses its own keymap, the behaviour of the rest of X must be repeated there. Maybe brazil.kmap is a kind of "brazil-nodeadkeys"? Guenter -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
