Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> kbd-define
>> kbd-define-map
>
> Since we're in the bikeshedding part of this, let me throw some ideas:
>
> - The name `define-key` might be tolerable because it "defines" the behavior 
> of
>   a given key, but I find it shouldn't say "define" but rather something
>   like "set" or "put" since it behaves much more like `setq`, `aset`,
>   `put`, `puthash`, ...

That's a really good point.  So `kbd-set'?

> - I really don't like `define-keymap` because "define" usually gives
>   a definition to a name, but here there's no name.  I'd prefer
>   something that says "make" or "create", or even just `keymap` (in the
>   tradition of reusing a type/class name as the name of the function
>   that constructs objects of this type).

I went with "define" since `make-keymap' was taken.  But if we're
switching stuff around, then perhaps...  `kbd-make'?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no