> (local-set-key ?\M-n #'magit-section-next) This is a good edge case solution. It is not a good solution for moving or removing bindings coherently across all current and future modes. On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:03 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Psionic K > > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:22:24 -0600 > > Cc: Ihor Radchenko , > > Emacs developers > > > > ;; The user will specify concept / abstract commands -> key sequences > > (setq-custom concept-sequences '((user-next ?\M-n) (user-prev ?\M-p))) > > ;; The package will specify concepts / abstract commands -> concrete > commands > > ;; So, something like a magit section mode intended to be derived from, > the package author writes: > > (setq-local concept-commands '((user-next #'magit-section-next) > (user-prev #'magit-section-prev))) > > ;; And then the package tells the implementation to consume the > declarations, which might occur after the > > mode hook to let the user intervene > > (emacs-function-setup-concept-keymap) > > > > `emacs-function-setup-concept-keymap' would be an implementation that > ties the user's declaration of > > sequence -> concept mappings together with the package's concept -> > command mappings. The result is > > that the local map should contain some command remap shadows > corresponding to what the user and the > > package declared. > > > > I neglected overloading in my example, but basically a user might be > okay with several concepts being able > > to map to one key and the package might be okay with mapping the same > command to one of several > > concepts. > > > > IMO these declarations one-to-many declarations should only be used with > two specific conventions: > > > > 1 Package authors specify a list of increasingly more generic concepts, > ending with `user-generic' which > > would just mean "any key that the user has bestowed upon packages by > default.". An example of more > > abstract definitions would be a declaration like (#'magit-section-next > (user-next user-navigation)). The > > implementation could try to map to user-next and if that's not > available, use an available sequence from > > user-navigation. > > 2 The user's convention for one-to-many mappings is different. They > might want to map a generic concept > > onto several key sequences in order, so they might declare something > like '(user-navigation (?\M-p ?\M-n > > ?\M-f ?\M-b)). If a package declares a user-next, user-prev, and two > more user-navigation commands, > > the implementation will give them all keymap elements. > > > > > I get the impression that your > > > SOME-INFO includes info for several commands. > > > > Yes. The reason commands should not handle this declaration is because > the implementation would have > > to discover the commands, and this would be fragile if the user starts > replacing commands or wants to > > specify commands that the package has no idea about. > > > > I'm also preoccupied with automating the user-driven re-mapping of > commands to key sequences when > > those commands express an extremely similar idea, such as "next". I see > this as a prerequisite for what I > > think you want. I don't think I agree with what I think you want, and > this could be messing with my > > interpretation, but it is a prerequisite still. > > > > We have lots of convention, lots of similarity in mode keymaps, but we > it's ad-hoc, and we just need to make > > it official so that the conventions are useful and user's can change one > declaration to move, for example, > > C-g. > > I think this discussion started from the wrong starting point, and that's > why the common understanding is difficult and misunderstandings abundant: > there's no reason to believe you and Stefan (and myself, and others who > read this) have the same goals and the same issues in mind. > > The basic problem here is that we don't have a clear commonly-shared idea > of > what we want to support with these features. > > My suggestion is to start from clarifying these requirements. A good > method > of understanding requirements is to describe typical use-cases and their > variations, as you probably know. With that in mind, would you or someone > else please describe such use-cases? Specifically: > > . what does the user specify? > . what should happen with key bindings to various commands as result of > the user specifications? > > For instance, with your example: > > > ;; The user will specify concept / abstract commands -> key sequences > > (setq-custom concept-sequences '((user-next ?\M-n) (user-prev ?\M-p))) > > ;; The package will specify concepts / abstract commands -> concrete > commands > > ;; So, something like a magit section mode intended to be derived from, > the package author writes: > > (setq-local concept-commands '((user-next #'magit-section-next) > (user-prev #'magit-section-prev))) > > ;; And then the package tells the implementation to consume the > declarations, which might occur after the > > mode hook to let the user intervene > > (emacs-function-setup-concept-keymap) > > I have no idea what will be the binding of magit-section-next. And, since > you only gave a single command as an example, I have no idea how is what > you > propose better than just saying > > (local-set-key ?\M-n #'magit-section-next) > > I understand what Stefan says about "letters" (probably meaning that 'n' > should be used in "next-FOO" commands and 'p' in "prev-FOO"), but I don't > understand what you are saying, because you didn't tell enough about your > eventual goal, in practical terms. > -- Psionic K Software Engineer *Positron Solutions *