bug#22334: 25.1.50; Better sorting of blocks in describe-bindings

[Eli Zaretskii]

[Please keep the bug address on the CC list.]

> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:07:24 +0800
> 
> 
> On 01/09/16 09:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> >> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:31:03 +0800
> >> 
> >> When using `describe-bindings' to see the current key bindings in
> >> effect, I'd like the major mode bindings to be sorted to the top of the
> >> buffer, followed by the minor modes.
> >
> > That's what I see we do now: the major mode is first, followed by the
> > minor modes.  There's a part with links to minor modes, in case the
> > user knows which minor mode she wants to read about.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Here's a little slice of what I see at the top of the binding buffer. I
> see this both with my customizations in place, and with emacs -Q:
> 
> Key translations:
> key             binding
> ---             -------
> 
> C-x           Prefix Command
> A-SPC          
> A-!           ¡
> A-"           Prefix Command
> A-$           ¤
> A-'           Prefix Command
> A-*           Prefix Command
> A-+           ±
> A-,           Prefix Command
> A--           ­
> A-.           ·
> A-/           Prefix Command
> A-1           Prefix Command
> A-2           Prefix Command
> A-3           Prefix Command
> 
> I don't even know what "A" represents. There's a mile and half of these.

They represent the Alt modifier.  I have no idea where these come
from, I don't have them here.

> I assume they have to come about because of how Emacs is built on my
> Linux system, but I can't guess how: I build from git, and make no
> manual changes to configure.
> 
> With emacs -Q, in the *scratch* buffer, the major mode bindings came
> right after the self-insert chunk, but there were no minor modes at all,
> so that doesn't explain anything. With full customizations in place, I'm
> not seeing any context where the major mode shows up before minor modes.
> They seem randomly mixed in.

Please try figuring out how come what you see is so much different
from what I see here.  Or maybe someone else can

> >> While we're at it, minor modes with no bindings in effect could just
> >> as well be omitted.
> >
> > It only takes a line or two; omitting that would be losing
> > information, IMO.
> 
> Not a big deal at all.

I'm not sure I agree.