[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][
Date Index][
Subject Index]
Re: XPL early programming decision - whether to RC loop or custom .kbd
- Subject: Re: XPL early programming decision - whether to RC loop or custom .kbd
- From: "Young For Life Products, Ltd" contact@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:41:30 -0500
I am starting to write this XPL overview program, for organizing ideas and
pieces in a writing project, and I have a key decision to make:
for a screen which the user will use frequently, entering and exiting it
automatically as they dip in and out of various parts of the whole project,
I need to control the keyboard. Probably about twenty different actions,
including cursor control to specific places on the screen, and menu actions.
In addition there will be allowed input of alphanumeric characters for
placing names in various parts of the screen.
I can either write a series of RC loops that leaves the default keyboard
alone, just temporarily captures input while the user is at that screen, or
I can temporarily load a special keyboard for during the time the user is at
that screen, and when that screen is exited, the user's default keyboard is
reloaded.
When the user is actually writing in a part of the project, not overviewing
the whole project, they are in a file and are not actually in the overview
program any more. All xywrite functions are available. When they go to save
the file, they invoke the program again through a hotkey or command line
command, and the program stores the file properly within the framework of
the overview program.
I incline toward the RC loop while at the overview screen, but am curious
how expert programmers would handle this. If I went with the .kbd idea, I
have to figure out how to capture the info of what .kbd file is presently in
use (I assume there's a function call for that) before invoking the overview
screen and temporary overview keyboard. I guess I could just assume it would
be called xy4.kbd, write it just for xy4 and let xy3'ers rewrite that part
of the program, but that still seems risky, considering the sophistication
of many of the people likely to use this program.
Charles