AutoHotkey Community

[Jabberwock]

Yes, it's me again Bear with me some more...

The difference between the simple binding and the enhanced mode is explained quite clearly. However, in games the second mode would somewhat simpler approach, i.e.
Mouse1 = Enter, that is, mouse buttons becomes the Enter key. I have nothing against loops and states, but many beginning gamers might be discouraged to do that.

In fact, thinking about AHK reminds me more and more of the Saitek X36/45 scripting program I have written. The Dh drivers also use the "flip-flop" way of controlling input and output.

While most of the credit goes to the Dhauzimmer, who created the drivers himself, the overlaying structure is mine. You can find the docs here:
http://elex.amu.edu.pl/~mjarek/

[Chris]

It's good that you mentioned this because the current method is both overly complex and slightly less than optimal in performance. Perhaps one of these methods would be good:

LButton::Enter
or
LButton down::Send {Enter down}
LButton up::Send {Enter up}

There's already an item on the to-do list to support hotkeys that fire on the release of a key, rather than the press of a key. One use for this would be to have a hotkey that peeks at a window while you're holding the key down, then alt-tab's back to your original window when you release it.

[Jabberwock]

I don't think you have to _choose_ one or the other. In Biped there are both. That is, as long as:

LButton::Enter is internally equivalent to:

LButton down::Send {Enter down}
LButton up::Send {Enter up}

you could combine them. In Biped (and all the other Saitek programming stuff before) the "execution" scripts and "programming" scripts are separated for the sake of interchangeability, i.e. you have:

DefinedSequence = Press this press that
and afterwards:

JoystickButton : Defined sequence.

In gaming it is very useful, as you want to reuse someone else's definitions assigning them to different controls. In other apps it's not necessary, but might make it somewhat easier to define complex configurations. As before, you can easily have it both ways, it's only a matter of syntax.

[Chris]

That's a good point, thanks.

Edit: In response to the ideas and this and other topics, a better remapping method has been added in v1.0.40.