Duh, I didn't pay attention to the `substitute-key-definition' and simply
assumed it was `define-key'. Sorry for my being so dense,
Couldn't we use key-remapping instead?
I think that would be cleaner than using substitute-key-definition.
___
[I am replying to this message, but I will try to address all the
concerns that have been expressed in this thread].
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Would
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Would it work?
As I said in another message substitute-key-definition works, and the
reason why it would be needed is what you just stated above.
Duh, I didn't pay
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Does any terminal have a real f29 key?
If not, why not just define function-key-map to map
it unconditionally into C-f5?
___
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Does any terminal have a real f29 key?
No idea.
If not, why not just define function-key-map to map
it
But it seems that X.org is now what most people seem to be converging
to. So supporting these bindings should be helpful for a lot of users.
I agree, but I think we should document the situation so people won't
be puzzled when some things sometimes don't work.
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
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Would it work?
I thought the translation from esc-sequence to f29 is already done by
function-key-map (with elements added by reading the terminfo data) and
you function-key-map
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be acceptable to add something like:
(substitute-key-definition [f29] [C-f5] function-key-map) to xterm.el?
Would it work?
It does, I tested it.
I thought the translation from esc-sequence to f29 is already done by
Cc: Dan Nicolaescu [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
From: Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:18:18 -0400
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
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
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.
xterm emits different strings for S-function_key, C-function_key,
A-function_key, C-S-function_key, A-C-function_key, A-S-function_key
where function_key is one of: f1...f12, prior, next, home, end,
insert, delete, prior, next, up, down, left, right.
xterm.el does not have support for all
13 matches
Mail list logo
