Curiostiy question re: keybinding ??

Curiostiy question re: keybinding ??

[William Case]

Hi;

Found the following hint in the emacs FAQ.  "To interactively bind keys
for all modes, type `M-x global-set-key <RET> KEY CMD <RET>'
Use the following "trick": First bind the key interactively, then
immediately type `C-x <ESC> <ESC> C-a C-k C-g'". Then I yanked
to .emacs.

Used it; it works.  However, I get the following;

(global-set-key "^Cc" 'compile)  ;; Ctrl-c
(global-set-key "\363" 'shell-command)  ;; Meta (Alt)-s 
(global-set-key (quote [8388723]) (quote shell))  ;; Super (Win)-s
(global-set-key (quote [8388631]) (quote kill-whole-line))  ;;
Ctrl-Super-w

I replaced the (quote "command") with 'compile and 'shell-command in the
first and second line. It reads even easier.  I like the formulation of
the keys as "^Cc"; they are simple to understand and make common sense.
But why did emacs generate the various numerical forms. Is this the
best/fastest way to do a binding?

It would be hard to remember what the numbers mean with out some
comments or a lot of memorization.

Is the first line binding style going out of use (replaced by the kbd
keyword) or coming in?  What would be the ^C (Ctrl) equivalent for Meta
-- ^M; and, Super -- ^s; and, Shift -- ^,?  What about Fx keys and
others?

This is not a complaint, nor I am I looking for a big dissertation.  I
have been to all the info, wiki and tidy sites.  Just wondering.

-- 
Regards Bill

Re: Curiostiy question re: keybinding ??

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

William Case <billlinux@rogers.com> wrote:

> It would be hard to remember what the numbers mean with out some
> comments or a lot of memorization.

Don't bother with it.  Use describe-key and describe-function to look up
keys, if you dynamically bind the keys.  If you define them by hand (or
by text rather), use whatever you can read best.

> Is the first line binding style going out of use (replaced by the kbd
> keyword) or coming in?  What would be the ^C (Ctrl) equivalent for Meta
> -- ^M; and, Super -- ^s; and, Shift -- ^,?  What about Fx keys and
> others?

Actually I don't think it ever was in style. The most common way I
probably is "\C-c\M-c\S-e"\, etc.  Not everything can be expressed like
that, though.  Using kbd is more powerful, but only the numerical form
is complete, as some special keys (say multimedia keys...) haven't been
assigned a name.

Check out http://tiny-tools.sourceforge.net/emacs-keys.html as well.

regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: Curiostiy question re: keybinding ??

[William Case]

Hi Nikolaj
Thanks for your reply.

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 22:51 +0200, Nikolaj Schumacher wrote:
> William Case <billlinux@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> > It would be hard to remember what the numbers mean with out some
> > comments or a lot of memorization.
> 
> Don't bother with it.  Use describe-key and describe-function to look up
> keys, if you dynamically bind the keys.  If you define them by hand (or
> by text rather), use whatever you can read best.
> 
> > Is the first line binding style going out of use (replaced by the kbd
> > keyword) or coming in?  What would be the ^C (Ctrl) equivalent for Meta
> > -- ^M; and, Super -- ^s; and, Shift -- ^,?  What about Fx keys and
> > others?
> 
> Actually I don't think it ever was in style. The most common way I
> probably is "\C-c\M-c\S-e"\, etc.  Not everything can be expressed like
> that, though.  Using kbd is more powerful, but only the numerical form
> is complete, as some special keys (say multimedia keys...) haven't been
> assigned a name.
> 
> Check out http://tiny-tools.sourceforge.net/emacs-keys.html as well.

Been there lots. It was just that (to me) the nice simple "^Cc" looked
intriguing.  Personally I have been using the vector [(...)] for a
couple of years.  I will play on my scratch sheet to see what I can get
to work in the way of "...".

Thanks again for your time. 

-- 
Regards Bill,
Emacs 22.0.990.1  Fedora 7