1. Accelerator Keys not working . . .
- Posted by jjnick at cvn.com
May 23, 2001
Okay, maybe there is something wrong somewhere . . . I have a pushbutton
called "Remove", the accelerator being "Alt-R", yet the button is not pushed
when I press "Alt-R", the focus just changes to the button . . . This
happens to all my pushbuttons in the window . . . In other words, the focus
changes to the
desired button, but the button is not pressed . . .
2. Re: Accelerator Keys not working . . .
- Posted by jjnick at cvn.com
May 24, 2001
The code provided doesn't work, I'm using win32lib v0.50 . . .
> However, if you are meaning that the onClick handler is not being invoked,
> then I cannot reproduce the effect on my system.
> Here is a little program I just used to test accelerator keys. It works
fine
> in version v0.55.0 and v0.55.1. By "fine" I mean that I get the expected
> message in the statusbar when I mouse-click on the buttons, and when I
press
> Alt-A/B/C/F9, and when I use TAB+SPACEBAR.
Yes, if win32lib is supposed to invoke the onClick handler, it doesn't. All
that happens is that the focus changes to the appropriate button with the
accelerator, yet, the button action is not invoked.
3. Re: Accelerator Keys not working . . .
- Posted by jjnick at cvn.com
May 24, 2001
> procedure clicks(integer self, integer event, sequence parms)
> setText(sb, sprintf("Button = '%s' (%d)", {getText(self), self}))
> end procedure
>
> setHandler({btn1,btn2,btn3}, w32HClick, routine_id("clicks"))
>
So, for every button I have an accelerator for, I have to call a unique
procedure which then calls the appropriate "onClick" procedure?
4. Re: Accelerator Keys not working . . .
- Posted by jjnick at cvn.com
May 25, 2001
> > So, for every button I have an accelerator for, I have to
> > call a unique
> > procedure which then calls the appropriate "onClick" procedure?
> >
>
> No. This is just ONE way you can do it. Here is another....
>
Thanks, by the way, I finally downloaded the newest version of win32lib and
WOW, things really have changed, looks like for the better. Only broke my
code in a few places. . .
