Skip to content
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

Unable to use super key as a keysym #209

Open
trueNAHO opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Unable to use super key as a keysym #209

trueNAHO opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@trueNAHO
Copy link
Contributor

trueNAHO commented Jun 17, 2023

Version Information

  • swhkd version (swhkd -V)
    • swhkd 1.3.0-dev

Expected behavior

sxhkd distinguishes between modifiers and keysyms with the following general syntax:

HOTKEY
    [;]COMMAND

HOTKEY      := CHORD_1 ; CHORD_2 ; … ; CHORD_n
CHORD_i     := [MODIFIERS_i +] [~][@]KEYSYM_i
MODIFIERS_i := MODIFIER_i1 + MODIFIER_i2 + … + MODIFIER_ik

It is therefore impossible to trigger commands on modifiers without keysyms:

super
   <command>

Instead, the keysm equivalent super keys Super_L and Super_R must be used:

{Super_L,Super_R}
   {_,_}<command>

Unfortunately, after reading the entire swhkd documentation and looking at every currently existing issue, I am unable to find a way to use the super key as a keysym in swhkd:

super
    <command>

Although other special keys can be used like this, the super key is not one of them.

The reason I would like to use the super key as a keysym, is to enter modes with it. Without this functionality, I would be forced to resort to appending an arbitrary keysym as a workaround, which undermines the numerous ergonomic advantages of key chords and modes.

Since I don't know how complex or time-consuming this implementation might be, there is no need to feel rushed. But do keep in mind that this feature would bring immeasurable value towards fostering an ergonomic working environment.

@Shinyzenith
Copy link
Member

This is a completely valid feature request but I wonder how we'd go about implementing this. I see #211 also exists which is in the same domain of feature requests so it is like that if we can get this issue resolved then #211 will also be resolved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants