|
From: | Gregory Heytings |
Subject: | Re: master 859190f 2/3: Convert some keymaps to defvar-keymap |
Date: | Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:31:27 +0000 |
However, that style as implemented by 'kbd' is not without its problems. It is too allowing in some cases where it would be better to be more strict:
Yes, one possible improvement would have been to implement a stricter "kbd" to use in this case.
Stefan Monnier says that we should also be able to say things like [(control x)], and I have no objections to that.
This should not change and does not change with the proposal.
Frankly, I don't see how this minor, and as I've said almost theoretical problem, should force us to create yet another syntax and yet another set of key binding functions.Ambiguity is not a good property to have in our most fundamental interfaces, IMO.
The proposed syntax is not ambiguous AFAICS. It's true that there's one corner case, which could potentially affect a handful of users, who want to bind the upper case letters C, S, M and H, or the lower case letter s, followed by a dash. IMO sacrificing a simple solution for that corner case is not reasonable.
I think we should not try to retro-fit any DWIM stuff on the old one, as that will lead to various problems. It would be better to provide a new one and promote that as a replacement.
The existing key binding functions have existed for several decades, so it would take several decades to replace them other ones.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |