Kevin Rodgers writes: > rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) writes: [I had written:] > > If a major mode keymap is defined using (make-keymap), then in both > > the mode description and the function description of the mode the key > > bindings are displayed in ASCII order; but if the keymap is defined > > using (make-sparse-keymap), then the key bindings are displayed in > > reverse ASCII order. > > > > Would you please send precise test cases? > > You say "are displayed", but that is not clear: > > displayed by what? With precise test cases, > > I would know the answer. Whoops, my report was sent by mistake (I composed it offline and pressed C-c C-c thinking that would send it to my Gnus queue for later editing, but I didn't realize that M-x report-emacs-bug doesn't interact with Gnus by default. I assume it went into my sendmail queue and was sent without my knowledge the next time I logged on.) In fact I prepared a test case, which I append below. > I think this is the same complaint discussed in the second part of > this article: > > From: kevinr@ihs.com (Kevin Rodgers) > Subject: Re: C-x r refers to both rectangle and register... > Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:03:32 -0700 > Message-ID: <3C87FFD4.97202D56@ihs.com> > References: > Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug Hm, there you wrote: > > I do C-x C-h and things are out of order, no matter what my LC_* env > > variables are, > [...] > Because ctl-x-4-prefix is a sparse keymap, ordered from newest to oldest > bindings. I assume by "newest to oldest" you mean the same thing Stefan Monnier wrote in the current thread: > With a sparse keymap the order is determined by the order in which > the bindings were added to the table. But this is not the behavior I observed, as the appended test case demonstrates -- that is, unless the bindings are added to the table in reverse ASCII order, and not in the order they are defined in by the mode-map defvar. BTW, this also happens in Emacs 20.7. --Steve Berman