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>").

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic