From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 859190f 2/3: Convert some keymaps to defvar-keymap Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <9865db3af5c002a6b5e3@heytings.org> References: <20211004081724.6281.11798@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20211004081727.4F24921048@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <871r4qcs8s.fsf@gnus.org> <87o87ubcnl.fsf@gnus.org> <87h7dm9en7.fsf@gnus.org> <818f9907c2b1fe8b54b1@heytings.org> <83tuhlnkxm.fsf@gnu.org> <818f9907c2f359a71f49@heytings.org> <83czo9nj4g.fsf@gnu.org> <818f9907c244b9db0bea@heytings.org> <834k9lnd2i.fsf@gnu.org> <818f9907c2dff3b49971@heytings.org> <83k0ign3zj.fsf@gnu.org> <818f9907c26fb6f0233a@heytings.org> <838rywm7a7.fsf@gnu.org> <9865db3af5547c6ca15c@heytings.org> <9865db3af561bf9f05d1@heytings.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30281"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 14 21:33:59 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mb6UI-0007ev-Sc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:33:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37952 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb6UH-0002GR-O3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:33:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb6Rw-0000xz-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:31:33 -0400 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:51576) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb6Ru-0007vl-3q; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:31:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1634239887; bh=mFG8g9RbcmHFv0SpCeSZrnwgWDOL8Rdble9sL8FROHo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=VgDo1r0jEkdyMN9FxRZCqMspjQJKhUFi9lEQqX/WIJsNE7mWkn0JsEh1ORJ79QieS YNcmZW9AF99YRgH+p/AfWqyyIxSeNMCaelUUkG8wx0VHUmLO0JThDvcD57UbaoNr5W H2yIXTL/DbgHr3g9Inok8Cq7fbByxfXWoXdWeARH4dhQpq71l/lJyvAD6oo+Pgwv8Q /CQaz3mRDDnYeHmT9cy6GkDH5MRlAX+8sdm9vJAIg/qr3JAk5EYneNriyJxko8B+gR lLAxseaT8Vcwi9yOi48g1DSPcH8Qs+YDIOKIyp+1+IbGd2YZBNqqZaZ7S/bS07LS0K VrgaDcBwOv6mQ== In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:277047 Archived-At: > > However, that style as implemented by 'kbd' is not without its problems. > It is too allowing in some cases where it would be better to be more > strict: > Yes, one possible improvement would have been to implement a stricter "kbd" to use in this case. > > Stefan Monnier says that we should also be able to say things like > [(control x)], and I have no objections to that. > This should not change and does not change with the proposal. >> Frankly, I don't see how this minor, and as I've said almost >> theoretical problem, should force us to create yet another syntax and >> yet another set of key binding functions. > > Ambiguity is not a good property to have in our most fundamental > interfaces, IMO. > The proposed syntax is not ambiguous AFAICS. It's true that there's one corner case, which could potentially affect a handful of users, who want to bind the upper case letters C, S, M and H, or the lower case letter s, followed by a dash. IMO sacrificing a simple solution for that corner case is not reasonable. > > I think we should not try to retro-fit any DWIM stuff on the old one, as > that will lead to various problems. It would be better to provide a new > one and promote that as a replacement. > The existing key binding functions have existed for several decades, so it would take several decades to replace them other ones.