Hi Emacs devs!
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> We can move `kbd' to subr.el as is, for short-term convenience, and we
> can leave it there permanently if that's useful. But that doesn't
> mean we have to adopt `kbd' syntax as our permanent new key binding
> syntax.
>
> Let's not rush to decide that new syntax!
We're not rushing -- `describe-key' has been around for quite a while,
and that's the syntax we're using.
Apropos rushing..
AFAIK bind-keys (from use-package) is fairly stable. Discussion of it in this thread fell by the wayside, I think. Is there a reason for that I may have missed? (I'm traveling these last few days and may well be poorly following the lists from my mobile.)
Are there design goals at stake here that bind-keys leaves aside? And, assuming there, would someone be so kind as to enumerate the design goals for a new keyboard binding layer?
Can compatibility with bind-keys be considered as (at least) nice to have in such a list?
My sense is that quite a number of people use it (via use-package). In fact, I would tend to assume use-package's bind-key is the most popular/well-used not-yet-supported-in-core means of setting up complex user defined key-bindings.
If these (data-free) assertions are true, supporting (whether or not actually using) bind-key may be preferable to 'socializing' the rationale for different heuristics.