Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:

Yes, you'd  need to fix at least
that documented  incompatibility and likely others; it shows that
writing lots of tests for that function are really important.

If nothing else, rewriting it made the code (at least to me) readable;
the implementation from reading kbd macros was pretty well
incomprehensible at least to my reading of it.


> Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:
>
>> Is your 'new-kbd' intended to be bug-for-bug compatible with 'kbd', or
>> have there been any functional changes along the way?  Are you
>> suggesting that we could perhaps just replace 'kbd' with your new
>> version?  (One observation is that your version still uses the cl-
>> functions, so it would need adjusting for subr.el.)
>
> Now I note the following comments:
>
> ;;; Tests:
> ;;; Note that we fail on
> ;;; "M-ESC"
> ;;; "M-<DEL>"
> ;;; "H-<RET>" etc,
> ;;; But match on "H-RET"
> ;;; (thanks Drew Adams) Likely due to over-optimization.
>
> So I guess we could borrow ideas from your code but not use it as a
> drop-in replacement in its current form.
>

-- 

Thanks,

--Raman(I Search, I Find, I Misplace, I Research)
♈ Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮