Re: Key bindings proposal

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:

 > >> Using `remap' is one way to express such an intention.
 > > Not really.  Remap is about deprecating a command, not really about
 > > key sequence choice.
 > 
 > Not at all.  `remap' is typically not used by the user in his .emacs but
 > by major/minor modes to locally/temporarily replace particular commands
 > by other ones

So what?  Presumably there is some mnemonic relationship between the
old command and the new one, otherwise it would make more sense to
choose a mnemonic key sequence and not use remap.  Ie, it's about the
commands, not the keys.

I don't see how this use of remap helps Uday or the
CUA-should-be-default crowd, since much of the time no such
relationship applies.  For example, `forward-sexp' is hardly useful in
VM Summary mode, but that doesn't mean that

(define-key vm-summary-map [remap 'forward-sexp] #'vm-summary-next)

makes any sense whatsoever.

(define-key vm-summary-map [remap next-line] #'vm-summary-next)

does make sense to me, but guess what?  #'next-line is a useful
command in VM Summary mode, even if much less useful than it is in
most modes.  So I'd be very bummed if Uday used [remap] instead of an
explicit keystroke binding there.