GNU bug report logs - #52821
Should "(elisp) Keymaps" describe key sequences first?

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 52821 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 52821 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Should "(elisp) Keymaps" describe key sequences first?
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 07:24:22 -0800

Now that we promote the new keymap-* functions, does it really make
sense to start the section (info "(elisp) Keymaps") with a description
of key sequences?

This seems to now be considered more of an internal detail, and the
thing that should be exposed to (new) ELisp code is rather the new key
description format accepted by `key-valid-p'.

I'm thinking it should be moved further down, perhaps in a section next
to this one:

* Low-Level Key Binding::       Legacy key syntax description.

There is a good description on the "new" key format in
(info "(elisp) Changing Key Bindings").  Perhaps it should
be moved up instead?

Message #8 received at 52821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 52821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52821: Should "(elisp) Keymaps" describe key sequences first?
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 23:20:33 -0500

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Now that we promote the new keymap-* functions, does it really make
  > sense to start the section (info "(elisp) Keymaps") with a description
  > of key sequences?

  > This seems to now be considered more of an internal detail,

A key sequence is a Lisp object, and it's not internal -- quite a few
programs operate on them.

The description in that node is confused between describing the
Lisp object itself and describing its printed representation.
Perhaps this node should describe the Lisp object format
and the issue of printing and inputting them should be elsewhere.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #11 received at 52821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 52821 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52821: Should "(elisp) Keymaps" describe key sequences first?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 17:02:32 +0100

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> Now that we promote the new keymap-* functions, does it really make
> sense to start the section (info "(elisp) Keymaps") with a description
> of key sequences?
>
> This seems to now be considered more of an internal detail, and the
> thing that should be exposed to (new) ELisp code is rather the new key
> description format accepted by `key-valid-p'.
>
> I'm thinking it should be moved further down, perhaps in a section next
> to this one:
>
> * Low-Level Key Binding::       Legacy key syntax description.

Yes, sounds good to me.

> There is a good description on the "new" key format in
> (info "(elisp) Changing Key Bindings").  Perhaps it should
> be moved up instead?

Yup.

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

Message #16 received at 52821-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 52821-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#52821: Should "(elisp) Keymaps" describe key sequences first?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 21:37:34 -0800

Version: 30.2

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:
>
>> Now that we promote the new keymap-* functions, does it really make
>> sense to start the section (info "(elisp) Keymaps") with a description
>> of key sequences?
>>
>> This seems to now be considered more of an internal detail, and the
>> thing that should be exposed to (new) ELisp code is rather the new key
>> description format accepted by `key-valid-p'.
>>
>> I'm thinking it should be moved further down, perhaps in a section next
>> to this one:
>>
>> * Low-Level Key Binding::       Legacy key syntax description.
>
> Yes, sounds good to me.
>
>> There is a good description on the "new" key format in
>> (info "(elisp) Changing Key Bindings").  Perhaps it should
>> be moved up instead?
>
> Yup.

Now done on emacs-30.  I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.