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