GNU bug report logs - #37485
27.0.50; C-m in describe-bindings

Previous Next

Full log

Message #41 received at 37485 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 37485 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37485: 27.0.50; C-m in describe-bindings
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:44:38 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: 37485 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:58:15 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Key description and fast typing are two separate issues.  Mnemonics is
> > yet another, third, issue (and assigning mnemonic value to 'm' in C-m
> > is generally unusual, IME).  I don't think these additional issues
> > should affect how we display C-m/RET _everywhere_ in our docs.  E.g.,
> > would you propose to use C-i instead of TAB?
> 
> Hm...  I think so?  (There's 67 `C-. C-i' in the manual.)

And 187 TABs.

> Mind you, I'm only talking about multi-key keystrokes if we were to do
> this by default.

I don't see the difference, and neither does describe-key, AFAIK.

> But what I really had in mind was to find out whether anybody had any
> smart ideas for how to convey to `describe-bindings' how these keys
> should be displayed on a per-keymap basis.  I hadn't taken a look at how
> keymaps are defined at all...
> 
> But they are really char-table objects wrapped in a list?
> 
> Would it be possible to add an option to `make-keymap' that would pass
> along an argument to control what `describe-bindings' should do with the
> keymap?  And then stash that in the char-table object?

I think it's a waste of cycles.  We have much more important stuff to
spend time on.  But that's me.

Previous Next

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