[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:39:48 +0200 |
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:29:33 +0100
> From: "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Emacs Devel <address@hidden>
>
> On 3/2/07, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Oh, so I misunderstood the original report: read-key-sequence does not
> > return 186, but 2234, i.e. it's working correctly.
>
> Yes. On my first message I wasn't talking about º, but C-M-º, and
>
> (event-basic-type (aref (read-key-sequence "") 0)) => 186
>
> when you type C-M-º (but 2234 when you type º).
>
> > The fix for it is to change w32 so that it does the decoding earlier, as is
> > done in X, rather than via encoded-kb.
>
> Before the release?
>
> It is not the most serious of bugs, but it is a bug nonetheless that:
>
> (global-set-key (kbd "C-M-º") 'my-command)
> M-x describe-key RET C-M-º => "C-M-º is undefined"
Handa-san, could you please comment on the findings in this thread?
Are the diagnosis and the proposed solution correct, in your opinion?
TIA
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, (continued)
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/26
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/27
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/28
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Stefan Monnier, 2007/03/28
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/29
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Chong Yidong, 2007/03/30
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/03/31
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/03
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Juanma Barranquero, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence, Jason Rumney, 2007/03/02
- Re: kbd vs read-key-sequence,
Eli Zaretskii <=