GNU bug report logs - #43617
27.1; Define-minor-mode keybindings not get precedence over global keymap

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
Cc: 43617 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, dalanicolai <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#43617: 27.1; Define-minor-mode keybindings not get precedence over global  keymap
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 09:04:47 -0700 (PDT)

> > The cons ((kbd "C-n") . 'foo) is exactly such a
> > (KEY . BINDING) pair - both KEY and BINDING are
> > suitable arguments for `define-key'.
> 
> Is it?
> 
> ELISP> (define-key global-map '(kbd "C-n") ''foo)
> *** Eval error ***  Wrong type argument: arrayp, (kbd "C-n")

I get your point.  I guess maybe there are two ways
to read the doc string.

The most _useful_ behavior for users, IMO, is for
`define-minor-mode' to allow expressions in arg
KEYMAP (when it's such a list) that correspond to
what a user writes in `(define-key ...)'.

Is that particular list form of KEYMAP intended
mostly for programmatically supplying such a list,
or for users to write such a list?

If the former, why is it needed/helpful at all,
since code can just as easily create a keymap arg.
If the latter, it gives users an easy way to write
key bindings directly for `define-minor-mode'.

I hadn't even paid attention to the existence of
such a form for the KEYMAP arg.  But it looks like
it could be handy for users to write - IF the sexp
to write is simple and straightforward.

If users instead need to use backquote syntax or
jump through other hoops to write such a KEYMAP
sexp, then what's the point - what's the use case?

Maybe there _is_ a programmatic use case.  If so,
what is it?

Previous Next

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