>From my previous patch:
***************
*** 110,117 ****
;;; "This function binds many inferior-lisp commands to C-c <letter>
bindings,
;;;where they are more accessible. C-c <letter> bindings are reserved for
the
;;;user, so these bindings are non-standard. If you want them, you should
! ;;;have this function called by the inferior-lisp-load-hook:
! ;;; (setq inferior-lisp-load-hook
'(inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings))
;;;You can modify this function to install just the bindings you want."
(defun inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings ()
(define-key lisp-mode-map "\C-ce" 'lisp-eval-defun-and-go)
--- 118,125 ----
;;; "This function binds many inferior-lisp commands to C-c <letter>
bindings,
;;;where they are more accessible. C-c <letter> bindings are reserved for
the
;;;user, so these bindings are non-standard. If you want them, you should
! ;;;have this function called by the inferior-lisp-mode-hook:
! ;;; (add-hook 'inferior-lisp-mode-hook
'inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings)
;;;You can modify this function to install just the bindings you want."
(defun inferior-lisp-install-letter-bindings ()
(define-key lisp-mode-map "\C-ce" 'lisp-eval-defun-and-go)
***************
I changed my mind on this part. Certainly, add-hook is better than setq.
But adding this to inferior-lisp-load-hook, as in the original version,
is _relatively_ better than adding it to inferior-lisp-mode-hook.
Neither of the two really seem to make a lot of sense, however, and
the comment is preceded by:
;;; This function exists for backwards compatibility.
;;; Previous versions of this package bound commands to C-c <letter>
;;; bindings, which is not allowed by the gnumacs standard.
So this particular part of the patch does not seem to matter too much.
Sincerely,
Luc.
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
