[Python-Dev] [Idle-dev] KeyConfig, KeyBinding and other related issues.

[Saimadhav Heblikar]

Apologies for the accidental cross post. I intended to send it to idle-dev.
I am sorry again :(

On 13 June 2014 20:11, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like the keyseq validator to be reviewed.
>
> The diff file: https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-diff
> A sample test runner file:
> https://gist.github.com/sahutd/0a471db8138383fd73b2#file-test-keyseq-runner-py
>
> In its current form, it supports/has
>     modifiers = ['Shift', 'Control', 'Alt', 'Meta']
>     alpha_uppercase = ['A']
>     alpha_lowercase = ['a']
>     direction = ['Up',]
>     direction_key = ['Key-Up']
>
> It supports validating combinations upto 4 in length.
>
> Please test for the above set only. (It will extended easily to fully
> represent the respective complete sets. The reason it cant be done
> *now* is the due to how RE optionals are coded differently in my
> patch. See CLEANUP below). I will also add remaining keys like
> Backspace, Slash etc tomorrow.
>
> # Cleanup:
> If we decide to go ahead with RE validating keys as in the above patch,
>
> 0. I made the mistake of not coding RE optionals -> ((pat)|(pat)) same
> for all sets. The result is that, extending the current key set is not
> possible without making all RE optional patterns similar.(Read the
> starting lines of is_valid_keyseq method).
>
> 1. There is a lot of places where refactoring can be done and
> appropriate comment added.
>
> 2. I left the asserts as-is. They can be used in testing the validator
> method itself.
>
> 3. The above patch still needs support for Backspace, slash etc to be
> added. I decided to add, once I am sure we will use it.
>
> 4. I would like to know how it will affect Mac? What are system
> specific differences? Please run the test-runner script on it and do
> let me know.
>
> ---
> My friend told that this thing can be done by "defining a grammar and
> automata." I did read up about it, but found it hard to grasp
> everything. Can you say whether it would be easier to solve it that
> way than RE?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On 13 June 2014 17:15, Saimadhav Heblikar <saimadhavheblikar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 June 2014 16:58, Tal Einat <taleinat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Saimadhav Heblikar
>>> <saimadhavheblikar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a heads up to both: I am writing a keyseq validator method.
>>>> It currently works for over 800 permutations of ['Shift', 'Control',
>>>> 'Alt', 'Meta', 'Key-a', 'Key-A', 'Up', 'Key-Up', 'a', 'A']. It works
>>>> for permutations of length 2 and 3. Beyond that its not worth it IMO.
>>>> I am currently trying to integrate it with test_configuration.py and
>>>> catching permutations i missed out.
>>>>
>>>> I post this, so that we dont duplicate work. I hope it to be ready by
>>>> the end of the day.(UTC +5.5)
>>>
>>> What is the method you are using?
>>
>> Regex. It is not something elegant. The permutations are coded in.(Not
>> all 800+ obviously, but around 15-20 general ones.). The only
>> advantage is it can be used without creating a new Tk instance.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "permutations"? If you mean what I think, then I'm
>>> not sure I agree with >3 not being worth it. I've used keyboard
>>> bindings with more than 2 modifiers before, and we should certainly
>>> support this properly.
>>>
>> I am sorry. I meant to write >3 modifier permutations.
>> (i.eControl-Shift-Alt-Meta+Key-X is not covered. But
>> Control-Shift-Alt-Key-X is.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Saimadhav Heblikar
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Saimadhav Heblikar



-- 
Regards
Saimadhav Heblikar