[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

From: Kaushal
Subject: Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:58:46 -0400

Here's what I now have to put a clean ending to this thread (for anyone who might end up here while looking for something):

(require 'iso-transl)
;; Add custom bindings to "C-x 8" map
(dolist (binding '((">"   . nil) ; First unbind ">" from the map
                   (">="  . [?≥])
                   (">>"  . [?≫])
                   (">\"" . [?»])
                   (">'"  . [?›])
                   ("<"   . nil) ; First unbind "<" from the map
                   ("<="  . [?≤])
                   ("<<"  . [?≪])
                   ("<\"" . [?«])
                   ("<'"  . [?‹])))
  (define-key iso-transl-ctl-x-8-map (kbd (car binding)) (cdr binding)))

Kaushal Modi

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Kaushal <address@hidden> wrote:
In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new thread

> And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts".  It is
> *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
> What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> turning on that set is optional)?  Now we're even down to looking to
> bind ≫ or »?  How silly is that?  (Well, I'm sure those chars are
> very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)

> Where's the beef?

As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.

I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for ≤ a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, ≤ was always represented as "<=" and so thought that that binding would make more sense.

Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the « and so we could not have the "<=" binding.

And then the thread evolved as you see.

As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably the other unicode characters were probably not popular.

So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for "C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some unicode characters.

I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.

Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
> use ≪ or ≫.

FWIW I'm in the same situation.


reply via email to

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