From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8350: 24.0.50; wrong bindings for remapped keys Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 15:00:54 -0400 Message-ID: <87hb8dbac9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306695731 4038 80.91.229.12 (29 May 2011 19:02:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8350@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 29 21:02:07 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFW-00062e-LH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 21:02:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60223 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFV-0005kx-FE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44616) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFT-0005kq-48 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFS-0001fy-FL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:34286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFS-0001ft-Ca for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlFR-0006iM-Uv; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8350 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8350-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8350.130669566525726 (code B ref 8350); Sun, 29 May 2011 19:02:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8350) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2011 19:01:05 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlEW-0006gt-KI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:01:04 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQlEV-0006gQ-8Y for 8350@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:01:03 -0400 Original-Received: from furball ([64.134.101.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4TJ0vXx011458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 29 May 2011 15:00:57 -0400 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B62916087D; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:00:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 15:02:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:46784 Archived-At: > If that behavior doesn't constitute a bug in your eyes, as I say, > that's fine with me. You might nevertheless consider documenting it. > There is nothing in the doc for `remap' that suggests this, I believe. I've edited the Lisp manually to specifically mention this.