Dan Nicolaescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> > In what xterm did you test these? I remember vaguely that I tried
in
> > >> > 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
conflict.
> >
> > > 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?
Thanks
--dan
_______________________________________________
Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
Emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
