[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug with S-Tab in keymaps

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Bug with S-Tab in keymaps
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:24:52 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

'Morning, Miles!

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 08:13:09AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
> > here's an embryonic `canonicalize-event' (note the American spelling
> > ;-).  It works, e.g. for

> Why all the mucking about with symbols?!  [E.g. 'C-M-u ]

My main point is that there should BE a standard way of representing key
sequences.  At the moment there is not.  So that if I type <shift>-<tab>
on my keyboard, function-key-map turns this into #x2000009.  `lookup-key'
then fails to find the binding on the symbol 'S-tab in a keymap.  This is
a bug.

Whether the standard I tentatively proposed is the right one or not can
be debated.  I'd appreciate people agreeing with me that a standard is

> Why not use a representation that actually works with emacs like
> '(control meta u)?

What do you mean?  Symbols actually work with Emacs very well.

For the specific instance you give, I actually proposed a number:
#x8000015 = ?\C-u + the meta bit.

But I still think 'C-M-up is superior to '(control meta up).  It takes
less space, and (eq sym 'C-M-up) is faster than (equal sym '(control meta
up)).  Also, events are represented as symbols at the moment, so why
change this to a list?

Of course, if the speed of looking up keys were a problem (it's not) we
could use an obarray.

The mucking about with symbols in my `canonicalize-event' only needs to
be twice per event per key lookup (and when the binding is made, of

> Thanks,

> -Miles

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]