[PATCH 3/3] xkbcomp: Add missing flag support and correct modifier handling of ISOLock

[wettstein509 at solnet.ch]

> > +    {"neither", (XkbSA_LockNoLock | XkbSA_LockNoUnlock)},
> 
> You didn't add it, but I do wonder what "neither" is good for, it
> renders the action rather useless, no?

I added it for consistency to other actions, but if we stretch our
imagination: Even with "neither", ISOLock transforms Set/Latch actions;
this has no apparent effect, but if another ISOLock comes up later
(without "neither") those transformed actions will not be transformed
once again.  So, if one does not like that ISOLock transforms actions of
key presses before the ISOLock, one can neutralise those with a
"neither" ISOLock, and after that type the usual ISOLock.  With the help
of a little utility (XRecord/XTest based typing assistance) this might
even be practical.  Maybe.

> > +    case F_Affect:
> > +	if (!ExprResolveEnum(value, &rtrn, lockWhich))
> > +            return ReportMismatch(action->type, field, "lock or unlock");
> > +        act->flags &= ~(XkbSA_LockNoLock | XkbSA_LockNoUnlock);
> 
> Would you consider adding a CheckAffectField() function, to unify to
> unify the handling of this for all the actions who use it? I think the
> handling is the same, except for ISOLock, where you'd need to set
> act->affect as well.

It is not so straightforward, as "act" has a different type at each
instance.

Andreas