Re: master 859190f 2/3: Convert some keymaps to defvar-keymap

[Gregory Heytings]

> However, that style as implemented by 'kbd' is not without its problems. 
> It is too allowing in some cases where it would be better to be more 
> strict:

Yes, one possible improvement would have been to implement a stricter 
"kbd" to use in this case.

> Stefan Monnier says that we should also be able to say things like 
> [(control x)], and I have no objections to that.

This should not change and does not change with the proposal.

> > Frankly, I don't see how this minor, and as I've said almost 
> > theoretical problem, should force us to create yet another syntax and 
> > yet another set of key binding functions.
>
> Ambiguity is not a good property to have in our most fundamental 
> interfaces, IMO.

The proposed syntax is not ambiguous AFAICS.  It's true that there's one 
corner case, which could potentially affect a handful of users, who want 
to bind the upper case letters C, S, M and H, or the lower case letter s, 
followed by a dash.  IMO sacrificing a simple solution for that corner 
case is not reasonable.

> I think we should not try to retro-fit any DWIM stuff on the old one, as 
> that will lead to various problems.  It would be better to provide a new 
> one and promote that as a replacement.

The existing key binding functions have existed for several decades, so it 
would take several decades to replace them other ones.