Thanks. I personally never needed to use ». But for someone already using
that, the ">>" binding is pretty intuitive (and same applies to "<<").

I'd vote for that change to happen so that we can have ">=" and "<="
bindings, and others beginning with "<" and ">" in future.

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> >>   ("_<" . [?≤])
> >>   ("_>" . [?≥])
> >> Can the bindings be changed to these:
> >>   ("<=" . [?≤])
> >>   (">=" . [?≥])
>
> FWIW, I agree.
>
> > ">" is already bound to »
> > "<" is already boudn to «
>
> ">>" and "<<" would seem to be better choices.
> The shorter `C-x <' used so far made sense when we restricted C-x 8 to
> something like Latin-1, but if we want to extend coverage, I don't think
> we can afford such short bindings.
>
>
>         Stefan
>