[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Standardizing more key bindings? |
Date: |
Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:19:05 -0400 |
[[[ 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. ]]]
> This led me to thinking that maybe Emacs actually needs a separate
> intermediate level of abstraction for keybinding customization.
What occurs to me is that we could have a level of indirection in
keybindings. C-w could be bound to something like cut-region-binding,
and cut-region-binding could be bound to some command (by default,
kill-region). And likewise M-w and C-y.
Turning on CUA mode would bind C-x to cut-region-binding and C-w to
something else, and other bindings likewise.
I have written the indirecting key bindings like symbols, but since
symbbols as key bindings have another meaning, I think they must not
be symbols. They should be some data type chosen to distinguish these
indirections all other valid key bindings.
Perhaps lists of the form (:indirect KEY-INDIRECTED-TO).
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
- Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, (continued)
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/10/02
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Nikolay Kudryavtsev, 2020/10/06
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?,
Richard Stallman <=