GNU bug report logs - #78582
30.1; which-key-mode overwrites custom key bindings

Previous Next

Full log

Message #68 received at 78582 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
Cc: murray.alex <at> gmail.com, luangruo <at> yahoo.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,
 78582 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#78582: 30.1; which-key-mode overwrites custom key bindings
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:12:22 +0300

> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  murray.alex <at> gmail.com,
>   luangruo <at> yahoo.com,  78582 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 10:22:38 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Alex Murray <murray.alex <at> gmail.com>,  Po Lu <luangruo <at> yahoo.com>,
> >>   78582 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 06:24:12 +0200
> >> 
> >> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > I have no idea how to fix this.
> >> 
> >> In any case, code that changes global state like global-set-key does
> >> looks wrong in loaddefs.el.
> >
> > What's wrong with it?  It's a direct effect of this part of kmacro.el:
> >
> >   ;;; Provide some binding for startup:
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key "\C-x(" #'kmacro-start-macro)
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key "\C-x)" #'kmacro-end-macro)
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key "\C-xe" #'kmacro-end-and-call-macro)
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key [f3] #'kmacro-start-macro-or-insert-counter)
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key [f4] #'kmacro-end-or-call-macro)
> >   ;;;###autoload (global-set-key "\C-x\C-k" #'kmacro-keymap)
> >   ;;;###autoload (autoload 'kmacro-keymap "kmacro" "Keymap for keyboard macro commands." t 'keymap)
> >
> > IOW, we do this on purpose, for the reasons explained in the comment.
> > Given that loaddefs is supposed toe be loaded just once, during
> > dumping, why is that wrong?
> 
> I don't follow. I didn't say it was done unintentionally, and being done
> intentionally doesn't mean it's right.

Not it general, but please tell what is wrong with the logic I
described above that is at work in this particular case.  Are you
saying that it is wrong to expect loaddefs not be loaded by a running
Emacs session?  If so, please tell why.

Previous Next

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