guruglenn wrote:
-> I see two different implementations, one claims to have improved performance. When I count the DllCall calls, I only get a 6 to 4 reduction, not the claimed 20 to 4 reduction, which convinces me I really don't understand one or the other of the implementations (or probably both).
I'll break it down for you.
Code:
EncodeInteger( p_value, p_size, p_address, p_offset )
{
loop, %p_size% ;one DllCall per p_size
DllCall( "RtlFillMemory"
, "uint", p_address+p_offset+A_Index-1
, "uint", 1
, "uchar", ( p_value >> ( 8*( A_Index-1 ) ) ) & 0xFF )
}
SendInputU( p_text )
{
StringLen, len, p_text
INPUT_size = 28
event_count := ( len//4 )*2
VarSetCapacity( events, INPUT_size*event_count, 0 )
loop, % event_count//2
{
StringMid, code, p_text, ( A_Index-1 )*4+1, 4
base := ( ( A_Index-1 )*2 )*INPUT_size+4
EncodeInteger( 1, 4, &events, base-4 ) ;four dllcalls per char
EncodeInteger( "0x" code, 2, &events, base+2 ) ;two dllcalls per char
EncodeInteger( 4, 4, &events, base+4 ) ;four dllcalls per char ; KEYEVENTF_UNICODE
base += INPUT_size
EncodeInteger( 1, 4, &events, base-4 ) ;four more per char
EncodeInteger( "0x" code, 2, &events, base+2 ) ;2 more per char
EncodeInteger( 2|4, 4, &events, base+4 ) ;4 more per char ; KEYEVENTF_KEYUP|KEYEVENTF_UNICODE
}
result := DllCall( "SendInput", "uint", event_count, "uint", &events, "int", INPUT_size ) ;one last one at the end
if ( ErrorLevel or result < event_count )
{
MsgBox, [SendInput] failed: EL = %ErrorLevel% ~ %result% of %event_count%
return, false
}
return, true
}
Total of 20 per char + 1 at the end
Code:
SendInputU( p_text ) ; 4 DllCalls/char + 1, reduced from 20/char + 1
{
event_count := ( StrLen(p_text)//4 )*2
VarSetCapacity( events, 28*event_count, 0 )
base = 0
Loop % event_count//2
{
StringMid code, p_text, 4*A_Index-3, 4
code = 0x4%code%
DllCall("RtlFillMemory", "uint", &events + base, "uint",1, "uint", 1) ; one per char!
DllCall("ntoskrnl.exe\RtlFillMemoryUlong", "uint",&events+base+6, "uint",4, "uint",code) ;one more per char
base += 28
DllCall("RtlFillMemory", "uint", &events + base, "uint",1, "uint", 1) ;another per char
DllCall("ntoskrnl.exe\RtlFillMemoryUlong", "uint",&events+base+6, "uint",4, "uint",code|(2<<16)) ;one last one per char
base += 28
}
result := DllCall( "SendInput", "uint", event_count, "uint", &events, "int", 28 ) ;and one at the end
if ( ErrorLevel or result < event_count )
MsgBox SendInput failed`nErrorLevel = %ErrorLevel%`n%result% events of %event_count%
}
Total of 4 per char + 1 at the end
Hope that makes it a bit clearer.
Quote:
-> I see a comment about making backspace work universally, but it is not clear where to put the code snippet.
Not 100% sure, try playing around with it in different places.
Quote:
-> I see nothing about how to integrate this into hotstrings... I guess one would have to use the command form of hotstrings...
Yeah, something like:
Code:
::bt@::
SendInput, Buy this%A_Space%
SendInputU("01050163") ;hex code for ąţ
SendInput, %A_Space%75¢
Return
Not tested, as I use SendU() rather than SendInputU(). But I'm pretty sure it will work. The hex codes are certainly correct.
Quote:
-> The interface seems to require 4 hex digits per character to be sent, which is mostly unreadable. Yes, comments are available, but it is painstaking to create such things.
<snip>
Has someone already wrapped this into something friendlier?
This is true, which is why unicode is a planned implementation for the future. And I don't see any way to wrap this in a more friendly way, because of AHK's lack of basic support for unicode.
Quote:
So it seems that AHK is still not quite useful for Unicode stuff... can be done, but requires lots of code, and is painstaking to use?
I suppose. But it still can be very useful; I use it a lot when I have to type up things for my Mandarin class.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
