We can/should of course document the decision that they aren't supported in rubbed in the manual though (if we make that decision)... João On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 16:46 João Távora wrote: > Hmm, not sure we should be using shorthands in docstrings, which aren't > read by the Lisp reader, but by something else... This is what is at stake, > right? > > Maybe if good reasonable semantics can be found, but not sure. > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 16:20 Thierry Volpiatto wrote: > >> >> João Távora writes: >> >> > This is a feature of Lisp in general and the correct way to go from >> > strings to symbols. >> >> Great, thanks to confirm. >> >> > Curiously, I was pleasantly surprised that much code of key symbol >> > processing facilities was already using this indirection and >> > shorthands automatically worked in those facilities because of that. >> >> `substitute-command-keys` at least doesn't handle this. >> >> Say you have the file foo.el with >> `read-symbol-shorthands` == (("f-" . "foo-")) and containing definitions >> like `f-dothis`, `f-dothat` etc... and a var `f-help-string` containing >> string like >> "\\[f-dothis]: Description", if you define a function `f-help` >> containing (substitute-command-keys f-help-string) it will fail >> complaining `f-dothis` is void. >> >> -- >> Thierry >> >