From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:23:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <45E8657D.4080202@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1175290095 9383 80.91.229.12 (30 Mar 2007 21:28:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 30 23:28:09 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HXOdk-0003wY-LO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:28:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXOgT-00047N-TT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:30:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HXOdo-0000df-Gv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HXOdn-0000d8-QO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXOdn-0000d2-Ks for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:28:11 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HXOb3-0006za-MU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:25:21 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HXOYv-0000nE-TI; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:23:09 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:11:45 -0400) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:68780 Archived-At: > I think it's a bug. It surely handles the ? the same > regardless of the modifiers. In both cases, it doesn't > decode the key event \351 to ?. Windows code ask > encoded-kbd-mode to decode it. And, although > Encoded-kbd-mode can decode \351 to ?, it can't decode > M-\351 to M-?. > That sounds like a clear bug in encoded-kbd-mode. No, the bug in the use of encoded-kbd-mode. Maybe they are both bugs. The decoding should be done elsewhere, as is done in X11. Perhaps it should be, and perhaps after the release we will change that. But that has no effect on what to do now. Right now, this is done with encoded-kbd-mode, and we are not planning to change that now. I've argued that encoded-kbd-mode is doing it wrong. Handa, do you see what I mean?