| Author |
Message |
|
| charlesroper |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:50 am |
 |
|
Registered User
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 1211
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| adamv |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 156
|
| If I had a dollar for every user request that included the phrase "...must be easy..."... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RyanJ |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 10
|
| As my boss (not a SW guy) would sometimes say: "It's easy... it's just software!" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| adamv |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 156
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| charlesroper |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 1211
Location: UK
|
Nice one Adam, that was quick work.
I thought it might be relatively easy because I perhaps naively assumed that controlling up/down behaviour with an additional set of keys would be a case of binding those new keys to whatever existing functions there are. Obviously it's a little trickier than that.  |
_________________
Charles Roper
twitter.com/charlesroper |
|
| Back to top |
|
| adamv |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:38 pm |
|
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 156
|
The technical reason for that is that "printable characters" send different events from control characters (including escape, keypad arrows, etc.)
So you end up with one path of code to handle some keypresses, and another path of code to handle other keypresses... I suppose there's some duplication in that code that could be reduced, but eh, maybe later. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
