Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[T.V Raman]

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

how about bind-key instead of define-key --- that "bind" says more
closely what it does.
>> 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`, ...
>
> - 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).
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>

-- 

Thanks,

--Raman(I Search, I Find, I Misplace, I Research)
?7?4 Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  ?0?8