It seems more intuitive to me this way. For example if I want to type Alt F4 and F4 is on layer 1, I would type Alt + MO(1) + 4. Using one shots I would equivalently type OSM(ALT) + OSL(1) + 4.
It honestly feels like you are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I've never mentioned "wrong" or "correct" or if you should want what I want. I was just saying that what you felt was un-intuitive actually felt intuitive to me.
Edit: I'm not a project maintainer shutting down your ticket with "Will not fix -- Working as intended" Im just another user saying that the way you claimed is unintuitive feels intuitive to me
Ah, maybe when I said that it felt counter-intuitive to me, you interpreted that as me saying it that QMK's behavior is wrong, and wanted to defend QMK? All I meant to say was that I want to customize it, not that they're wrong.
Otherwise, I don't see the point in sharing what feels intuitive to you. I wasn't asking folks which they prefer, I was asking how I can change it, and your comment didn't address that at all.
I was gonna suggest looking at [Callum mods](https://github.com/callum-oakley/qmk_firmware/tree/master/users/callum), which is an implementation that allows "chaining" of OSM's similar to what you describe, but in looking for the above link, I found that someone actually adapted Callum's code to work for OSL's as well: https://blog.ffff.lt/posts/callum-layers/. As I just discovered this, I don't know too much about how it works, but it should be pretty close to what you're looking for.
edit: and here's a more up to date version from an PR in progress of the second feature which the author is calling "flow"
It seems more intuitive to me this way. For example if I want to type Alt F4 and F4 is on layer 1, I would type Alt + MO(1) + 4. Using one shots I would equivalently type OSM(ALT) + OSL(1) + 4.
So, are you saying that it's wrong for me to want it the way I want it, and instead I should want it the way you want it?
You might be confusing counter intuitive with wrong. It's not wrong to want something that is counter-intuitive.
It sounds like you believe that "intuitive" is absolute, rather than subjective; and that your sense of what's intuitive is the correct one.
It honestly feels like you are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I've never mentioned "wrong" or "correct" or if you should want what I want. I was just saying that what you felt was un-intuitive actually felt intuitive to me. Edit: I'm not a project maintainer shutting down your ticket with "Will not fix -- Working as intended" Im just another user saying that the way you claimed is unintuitive feels intuitive to me
Ah, maybe when I said that it felt counter-intuitive to me, you interpreted that as me saying it that QMK's behavior is wrong, and wanted to defend QMK? All I meant to say was that I want to customize it, not that they're wrong. Otherwise, I don't see the point in sharing what feels intuitive to you. I wasn't asking folks which they prefer, I was asking how I can change it, and your comment didn't address that at all.
I was gonna suggest looking at [Callum mods](https://github.com/callum-oakley/qmk_firmware/tree/master/users/callum), which is an implementation that allows "chaining" of OSM's similar to what you describe, but in looking for the above link, I found that someone actually adapted Callum's code to work for OSL's as well: https://blog.ffff.lt/posts/callum-layers/. As I just discovered this, I don't know too much about how it works, but it should be pretty close to what you're looking for. edit: and here's a more up to date version from an PR in progress of the second feature which the author is calling "flow"