From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: M-g in dired Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <873bnf36mr.fsf@jurta.org> <878xwap86u.fsf@jurta.org> <8764rcye8k.fsf@jurta.org> <877jbqmrbc.fsf@jurta.org> <87r79xzsl5.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87zmok96ry.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1131154849 19517 80.91.229.2 (5 Nov 2005 01:40:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 01:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 05 02:40:48 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EYD1s-0003fT-LX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2005 02:39:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EYD1s-0005I1-2q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:39:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EYCzn-0004La-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EYCzl-0004Ka-C4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EYCzk-0004KG-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EYCzk-0007Hm-UI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:25 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1EYCzj-00045Z-VT; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:37:24 -0500 Original-To: Juri Linkov In-reply-to: <87zmok96ry.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:06:09 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:45422 Archived-At: >From the docstring I understood that "valid key sequence" means a valid and bound key sequence, due to the sentence: The number is how many characters at the front of key it takes to reach a non-prefix command. I will change that to say "a non-prefix key". But you know you really should look at the manual in cases like this. However, if this is not what the docstring meant, and leaving the logic of the current return value is desirable, then maybe `lookup-key' needs an additional argument defining another logic of its return value. Why? Otherwise, almost all code in `lookup-key' should be duplicated in `shadow_lookup'. Why?