From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Command remapping and the delete-frame problem. Date: 22 Feb 2002 16:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: <5xpu2xv81x.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <5x3czwjqxs.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <7263-Wed20Feb2002194728+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <5xd6yzwxs8.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200202220433.g1M4XP414080@aztec.santafe.edu> <5xd6yx965v.fsf_-_@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014392630 3241 195.204.10.66 (22 Feb 2002 15:43:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Feb 2002 15:43:50 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16eHrR-0000qA-00 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:43:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16eHps-0004fG-00; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:42:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16eHnN-0004Ta-00; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:39:37 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 652DF7C035; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:39:34 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <5xd6yx965v.fsf_-_@kfs2.cua.dk> Original-Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1423 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1423 Earlier today, I wrote: > > Are you now saying that remapping should have been implemented > using a specific `command' prefix like this: > > (define-key map [command command1] 'command2) > > I can see that this is better than the current implementation as it > makes a clear destinction (in the keymaps) between commands and other > symbols like those used on the menu-bar, and a few symbols which are > both commands and keys (e.g. `undo'). > > All of this makes a lot of sense -- should I go back and change the > implementation to use an explicit `command' prefix for command > remapping? Actually, I went ahead an made the changes in a fully transparent way. This means that internally, remapping command FOO to BAR is stored as a binding for [command FOO], i.e. the "event" `command' is bound to a keymap in which FOO is mapped to BAR. But the interface to define-key, lookup-key and key-binding hasn't changed. They just take FOO as the KEY argument - which is still an unambuguous way to represent command remapping, as those functions don't otherwise accept a symbol as the KEY argument. The changes are very small, so I expect to commit them later this evening. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel