[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: more key bindings for xterm

From: Dan Nicolaescu
Subject: Re: more key bindings for xterm
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:39:55 -0700

Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:

  > Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
  >   > >> > In what xterm did you test these?  I remember vaguely that I tried 
  >   > >> > the past to add more bindings to xterm.el, but abandoned the idea
  >   > >> > after I discovered that different flavors of Unix had xterm's that
  >   > >> > used incompatible bindings.
  >   > >> 
  >   > >> Luckily, tho the bindings are sometimes different, they rarely 
  >   > 
  >   > > I'm not sure.  I think, at the time, I did find conflicts.
  >   > 
  >   > We can deal with them when we find them.  As I said, those bindings are
  >   > "weak" and overridden by anything, so they can't be much worse than no
  >   > binding at all.
  > Actually, it seems that when I was testing this patch I had an
  > incomplete terminfo entry in ~/.terminfo that seems to be picked up by
  > default on GNU/Linux (without setting the TERMINFO environment
  > variable). This affects all the mappings involving the F1-12 keys.
  > (the strings are correct, but the keys don't work as expected).
  > It seems that any MODIFIER-F_KEY emits a string that is defined in one
  > terminfo entry kf13->kf63. So given that key definitions in xterm.el
  > don't have priority Emacs does not see them and it reports an
  > undefined key. For example for C-f5 it says "<f29> undefined". 
  > I am not sure what is the best way to deal with these key bindings. 

Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el? 

There probably is a better way to create the MODIFIER-F_KEY bindings, 
but I am not aware of it. Can somebody help please? 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]