GNU bug report logs - #12976
24.2; C-c i is bound to custom function, but in a term buffer it gets bound to ido-insert-file

Previous Next

Full log

Message #16 received at 12976 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josh <josh <at> foxtail.org>
To: 12976 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jrm <at> ftfl.ca
Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 12976-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12976: 24.2; C-c i is bound to custom function, but in a term
 buffer it gets bound to ido-insert-file
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:14:20 -0700

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Leo Liu <sdl.web <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-24 11:43 +0800, Glenn Morris wrote:
>> Now `C-c i' is bound to insert-file. I guess this is because
>> term-escape-char = C-c, and term-raw-escape-map has Control-X-prefix as
>> parent keymap. I don't know what, if anything, to do about this.
>
> I consider this not a bug.

I certainly do.  From (info "(elisp) Key Binding Conventions") :

     * Don't define `C-c LETTER' as a key in Lisp programs.  Sequences
       consisting of `C-c' and a letter (either upper or lower case) are
       reserved for users; they are the *only* sequences reserved for
       users, so do not block them.

       Changing all the Emacs major modes to respect this convention was a
       lot of work; abandoning this convention would make that work go to
       waste, and inconvenience users.  Please comply with it.

> This is how term.el works because it has drastically different key
> bindings. Thus it gives the user C-c to invoke those critical commands
> on the C-x prefix, or you will be trapped in term-mode forever.

Several of the commands that term.el binds to C-c <letter> are
anything but critical, e.g. set-fill-column (C-c f) and
count-lines-page (C-c l).  Furthermore, as for being "trapped
forever," I see no reason for C-c in particular to be appropriated for
this purpose instead of some other control character that would leave
users' bindings intact, or even moving `ctl-x-map' from C-c to C-c
C-x, though this would be more effort to implement.

> User-defined commands are secondary in this scenario.

The passage I cited refers to "all the Emacs major modes".  Is there
any reason to believe that term.el should be exempt from adhering to
this convention?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.