From: Scott Baily <baily@us...> - 2002-07-01 16:24:48
Can someone please clarify the proper meaning of repeat_gap, it doesn't
behave the way I think it should.
I thought that if a remote has_repeat_gap and if two codes are separated by
a repeat_gap, then they are due to the same button press, and that if they
are separated by a gap they are from different button presses.
This is not the way LIRC behaves.
LIRC defines the repeat_gap as the space following a code that begins with
a repeat header. Therefore if (!has_repeat) then repeat_gap is ignored. For
a remote with a repeat_gap LIRC sends (and expects to receive) this:
This is the simplest case of a code sent 3 times.
The behavior I want is this:
of if (!has_repeat)
Am I looking for a new feature? or is this the way repeat_gap should behave.
If it's a bug, then I already know how to fix it, but I don't want to cause
problems if i'm just confused.
Scott Baily "baily@..." wrote:
[meaning of repeat_gap]
> This is the simplest case of a code sent 3 times.
> The behavior I want is this:
> of if (!has_repeat)
> Am I looking for a new feature?
Yes, AFAIK currently there's no way to tell LIRC to behave like this.
Your former description of LIRC's behaviour matches it's intended
behaviour (except that there's no data sent with a repeat signal).
If you want the latter behaviour you'll have to at least add a new flag.