-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
Qt4 keys #2273
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Qt4 keys #2273
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
26e8b9f
add extra keys to qt4 backend
mrterry 62f564e
support for unicode key_press_event
mrterry db86c40
comments
mrterry 1226094
pull qt keys into module variables
mrterry b454f32
add tests for Qt Key handling
mrterry b80a8e7
simplify key getting logic
mrterry 41fdfae
expose modifier key indexes
mrterry b22193b
fix tests
mrterry 16ed6e8
remove unused text() from qt key testing
mrterry 60407dc
backspace tests
mrterry bf4e43d
parens for clarity
mrterry 32ddf1e
require mock
mrterry c9721fe
compare python versions correctly
mrterry 5cfbeb4
Tests reports found version of nose/mock
mrterry 6770646
stray paren
mrterry 2bea38e
remove unused imports
mrterry 8f68252
whitespace
mrterry
8000
Sep 6, 2013
ec40639
describe origin of modifier list
mrterry 989ce39
document assert_correct_key
mrterry 2359f09
filter out non-unicode codepoints and add test
mrterry File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
simplify key getting logic
- Loading branch information
commit b80a8e7485e09f82c4c8f8b3e7255cac419d67b1
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Minor point: is the
== m
part redundant?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm cautious of making a statement on operator precedence, but I think a pair of parentheses would be helpful here:
[event_key != k and (event_mods & m) == m]
if I'm not mistaken?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
bit-wise operators have very high precedence, but the parens do make it easier to read. i'll add them.