From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Round-tripping key definitions Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:46 -0500 Message-ID: References: <875yswtzxh.fsf@gnus.org> <87o86ohzyv.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7489"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Emacs developers To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 13 16:25:28 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 1mluuF-0001ef-Bu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:25:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52908 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mluuD-0007SR-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:25:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mlusj-0005cd-Pn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:35474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mlusg-0001Xv-Ko for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:53 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9E2C44098A; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:48 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21AE8440978; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1636817027; bh=uG96OySTsrIB2KUZt46IDp3pwBHe+8P7zPr/xgoHWTc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nZ+bCgofkqoBtXlDzcnRjYCpIJBDGoNLk5rwqIFa0WVDGFwqN0iNEtOJf1+YGVqGL K6YyK1dJ3jsrDKDZpHlTcJA56zk113Ixmm666wvAsFHmlEehAO3Ax1SiWuyCyfZwYP 8Nso8HShWTF+jRjVKsI4qkca+9HOkLBsuK7cmBEdOs6Dljs/AW7niZ5AvD1obNTAj5 0AzgOgz2PAS8uhdKYyqHBPpduuZIgdGnTbdYwipovaz2Bc7x1ypDNYZXAdWxpitQyz 2YaphPIkCSu8XVqXNX+uJvSZ8BwL3p/vBwKjBQrtcp00FfQxABn41R4BhwQgFYm7JN fSO+a77lYklOg== Original-Received: from ceviche (modemcable034.207-20-96.mc.videotron.ca [96.20.207.34]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA1EF120304; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:23:46 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87o86ohzyv.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:50:16 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: 2.1.29 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:279329 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen [2021-11-13 15:50:16] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >> FWIW, I think the TAB/C-i, RET/C-m, ESC/C-[, DEL/C-? confusion should be >> fixed by really decoupling the two. > I thought I remembered somebody saying that that wasn't really feasible > (at least not on terminals)? If it is, that'd be fantastic. And you believed that somebody? >> Maybe one way to do that is to have a `function-key-map` fallback from >> `[?\C-i]` >> to `[TAB]` (so `?\C-i` and `tab` would be "equal partners" both of >> which default to falling back to the new `TAB` key). BTW, I haven't thought very hard about the impact in terms of compatibility with existing code. > But are those the only ones? Hm... I guess? That's the question: for those four, the solution you propose is an incomplete solution to their problem, so if there aren't any others I'm not very favorable to the idea (at least not before we investigate more direct solutions (like the one I outlined) and conclude that we have to live with the current problem). >> Truly inspiring. A have a question: how would you define "ambiguous"? > I would define it ambiguously. Quantum code? Stefan