Re: keyDown idiosyncricies

emlowe@fsa.ca
Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:43:31 -0700 (MST)

>
> > > > I would like to implement an incremental search type thing in MetaCard.
> > > > I would have two fields, the first field is the first to search in, and
> > > > the second field is the incremental search input field.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who has used emacs (Control-s) knows what I want.
> > >
>
> The 2.0 script editor does these things, you just have to handle the
> backSpaceKey and deleteKey messages (I removed them from the script I
> posted to save space and avoid confusion).

Yea, but I don't want to have to handle them. I'm lazy. Besides, the
metacard field does a fine job of implementing these things, so why
would I want to reinvent the wheel?

> I don't know how *you* use Emacs, but I almost never type more than 1
> word. And it's never occured to me that the inability to edit the
> search string (other than using backspace or delete) is a shortcoming.

Actually I don't use Emacs; I'm a vi guy.

Not being able to edit the search string may not be a shortcoming, but
the search field will have less functionality than all the other fields
in the UI. All fields should have similar text entry functionality,
otherwise the user will wonder why some things don't work in a
particular instance.

>
> > Why do I have to give up the usefulness and functionality of the entry
> > field?
>
> Back to your original post, though. It sounds like you want to have
> the cursor in two fields at the same time, which is impossible. So
> you have to make a choice: either put the cursor is in the search
> string field and mark the found text by hiliting in the field to be
> search (e.g., setting the textColor of the found string), or, you use
> the design used by Emacs and the 2.0 script editor. The latter is
> much easier to implement since you can just move the text cursor
> (using the select command), but you also have to give up the ability
> to edit the search string.
>

I want to search a locked list box, so there isn't any cursor to speak
of in the field I want to search. So, the cursor will be in the search
string field, but this field will have different behaviour than all the
other fields in the UI, which I don't want.

> Your original questioned concerned the first type of implementation,
> where you wanted to find the text *after* the character was entered
> into the field. Why not just put the character into the field in the
> script, then search, and then not pass the keydown message?

Again, because I lose functionality in the search string field.

-Earle

-- 
Earle Lowe
emlowe@fsa.ca
FSA Corporation
Performance and system software for UNIX networks.