Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Gregory Heytings]

> Anyway, it seems like we (more or less) have a complete list of all 
> symbols that are possible, but there's no way to ask Emacs "is this a 
> valid lispy event name?"  And it depends on the OS -- so we can't really 
> create a function based on the lispy_ C arrays either, because it'd be 
> annoying to get errors (or warnings) on different systems.

And as Eli just said, Emacs (or an Emacs package) could invent new 
symbolic names for events at any time.

> But it does seem true that none of our events start with a number, or a 
> dash, or an underscore.

Indeed.  We were working on this in parallel, so just in case, I attach 
the last version of my patch, which performs I think a more thorough check 
of the key binding string.

BTW, I think something was still unclear in my proposal.  I was not 
suggesting to use, in the long term, strings for both the kbd syntax and 
for strings where every char represents an event.  What I was suggesting 
is to allow both syntaxes for one Emacs release, and to deprecate the 
"strings where every char represents an event" in the next Emacs release 
(or possibly to create a specific notation for them if removing them is 
not possible).  IOW, the long term situation would be unambiguous.  Do you 
really think that it's better, in the long term, to see

(define-key ... ["C-a"] ...)

everywhere (or almost everywhere), instead of

(define-key ... "C-a" ...)

?

Make-it-possible-to-use-the-kbd-key-binding-syntax-i.patch
Description: Text Data