[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Round-tripping key definitions

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: Round-tripping key definitions
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:43:15 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

> It'd be nice if doing a `describe-keymap' would output the same bindings
> that we put in.  I mean, on the same form.  If you define a key as
> "C-i", that function will describe the key as "TAB", for instance.  (And
> the person making that keymap may have meant C-i with "i" being a
> mnemonic for something.)

FWIW, I think the TAB/C-i, RET/C-m, ESC/C-[, DEL/C-? confusion should be
fixed by really decoupling the two.

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).

You say "for instance" above, but which confusing cases are there other
than the four TAB/C-i, RET/C-m, ESC/C-[, DEL/C-? special cases?

> `describe-keymap' could use the :bindings entry to look up the intended
> syntax (and not output that element).
> Yeah!  I think that should work?  (We'd only add this entry if there's
> any "ambiguous" keys in the map, so the impact wouldn't be noticeable, I
> think.)
> Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Truly inspiring.  A have a question: how would you define "ambiguous"?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]