RE: Bikeshedding go! Why is <M-f4> unbound?

[Drew Adams]

> > So far it seems to have been agreed that in any case 
> > (whatever is done or not done) both users and libraries
> > should feel free to bind M-f4 in Emacs.
> 
> This is a misunderstanding. We have not even been discussing this. No
> one has said that users and libraries should not be able to bind M-f4.

I don't know what the misunderstanding is.  You seem to be in violent agreement.
We are both saying that it is agreed by all that users and libraries should be
able to bind M-f4 in Emacs.

If you agree, then in your words, "how both users and libraries could decide on
this"?  The answer to that applies also to how both can decide about the
behavior of unbound M-f4 (whether to raise an error or pass to Windows).

> >> >> No one has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be
> >> >> sent to w32.
> >> >
> >> > Odd that you would say this just after you asked what other
> >> > behavior could possibly exist.
> >>
> >> Could you please be a bit more exact in your questions?
> >
> > See what you wrote at the top.  You've made it very clear 
> > that you want Alt+f4 hard-coded to pass through to Windows
> > when unbound in Emacs.
> 
> Please do not try to win by dismissing important details, it is
> useless and wastes our time. You are mixing to very different things
> here.

No idea what you're talking about.  What details? What two things?

You stated both (a) "Yes, I actually do prefer #3 hard-coded" and (b) "No one
has suggested that Alt+F4 should be hardcoded to be sent to w32."  (The latter
was in the context of handling an _unbound_ key.)  You are someone, not no one.

I think (but am not sure at this point) that your position is (a): you want to
hard-code the behavior that unbound Alt+F4/M-f4 should always be sent to w32.