Re: inf-lisp.el

[Luc Teirlinck]

>From my previous patch:

   ***************
   *** 110,117 ****
     ;;;  "This function binds many inferior-lisp commands to C-c <letter> 
bindings,
     ;;;where they are more accessible. C-c <letter> bindings are reserved for 
the
     ;;;user, so these bindings are non-standard. If you want them, you should
   ! ;;;have this function called by the inferior-lisp-load-hook:
   ! ;;;    (setq inferior-lisp-load-hook 
'(inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings))
     ;;;You can modify this function to install just the bindings you want."
     (defun inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings ()
       (define-key lisp-mode-map "\C-ce" 'lisp-eval-defun-and-go)
   --- 118,125 ----
     ;;;  "This function binds many inferior-lisp commands to C-c <letter> 
bindings,
     ;;;where they are more accessible. C-c <letter> bindings are reserved for 
the
     ;;;user, so these bindings are non-standard. If you want them, you should
   ! ;;;have this function called by the inferior-lisp-mode-hook:
   ! ;;;  (add-hook 'inferior-lisp-mode-hook 
'inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings)
     ;;;You can modify this function to install just the bindings you want."
     (defun inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings ()
       (define-key lisp-mode-map "\C-ce" 'lisp-eval-defun-and-go)
   ***************

I changed my mind on this part.  Certainly, add-hook is better than setq.
But adding this to inferior-lisp-load-hook, as in the original version,
is _relatively_ better than adding it to inferior-lisp-mode-hook.
Neither of the two really seem to make a lot of sense, however, and
the comment is preceded by:

;;; This function exists for backwards compatibility.
;;; Previous versions of this package bound commands to C-c <letter>
;;; bindings, which is not allowed by the gnumacs standard.

So this particular part of the patch does not seem to matter too much.

Sincerely,

Luc.