GNU bug report logs - #45379
28.0.50; Degraded Performance of describe-buffer-bindings

Previous Next

Full log

Message #81 received at 45379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: stephen.berman <at> gmx.net, juri <at> linkov.net, handa <at> gnu.org, styang <at> fastmail.com,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, larsi <at> gnus.org, 45379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#45379: 28.0.50;
 Degraded Performance of describe-buffer-bindings
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 16:24:41 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:34:08 -0700
> Cc: stephen.berman <at> gmx.net, handa <at> gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net, 
> 	styang <at> fastmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 45379 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 
> 	Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> 
> >   key             binding
> >   ---             -------
> >
> >   0 .. 9	digit-argument
> >   e		tar-extract  (currently shadowed by ‘View-exit’)
> >   f		tar-extract
> >
> >   C-d		tar-flag-deleted
> >   RET		tar-extract
> >     (this binding is currently shadowed)
> >   C-n		tar-next-line
> >   C-p		tar-previous-line
> >   SPC		tar-next-line
> >     (this binding is currently shadowed)
> >   C		tar-copy
> >     (this binding is currently shadowed)
> >
> > Note how the shadowing of 'e' is described with the command that
> > shadows it, but the shadowing of RET, SPC, and 'C' isn't.  Why is
> > that?  Is that a separate bug?
> 
> It is a separate bug, I think.  The "currently shadowed part" is new in
> commit fb9326b45c76, but it was never fixed for the second case.

Then I guess we can close this bug?

Previous Next

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