Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

>>>>> That doesn't mean that the new functions couldn't be more lax while
>>>>> parsing, and dwim when I say C-f1 for M-space.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds very lax indeed.
>>>
>>> Do you think it would be impractical?
>>
>> Depends.  Do you also mean M-<return> when you say C-<home>?
>
> No, but I am not sure what you mean by this.
>
> My point is that instead of extending or creating a new syntax, that the
> new functions could handle a superset of what kbd currently does. So
> where as (kbd "C-f1") currently throws an error, the new functions could
> interpret the previous expression to be equivalent to (kbd "C-<f1>").

But you said that C-f1 should be interpreted as M-space, so I wasn't
sure what you were getting at.

But, no, I don't think the functions should be lax when interpreting
these strings -- it's just confusing.  

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no