Re: substitute-key-definition vs. define-key MAP [remap ...]

[Miles Bader]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
>  > It's far better, because it follows the normal scoping rules of
>  > keymaps
>
> OK, but that's not what I understood from Stefan's description.  He
> said that remapping would affect *all* uses of the command as a
> binding, requiring either invocation via M-x or renaming the command.

It affects all uses _where the [remap ...] key-entry is visible (in the
same way a normal binding is visible)_.

So in my example, when caps-lock-mode is turned on, a small [remap]
binding becomes visible via minor-mode-map-alist, and thus affects
keystrokes in that buffer (until you turn off the minor-mode, which
implicitly disables its keymap).

[I have no idea what the implementation is like, but the above is the
basic idea.]

-Miles

-- 
We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
-Oscar Wilde