Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Philip Kaludercic]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> 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.

Oh my, now I understand what you mean. No, that was a typo ("or" ->
"for"). Sorry about that.

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

How come? It could just as well be argued that throwing errors while
parsing key bindings is also confusing, especially when guessing that
C-f1 is the same C-<f1> isn't that far of a jump.

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic