Re: position on changing defaults?

[Richard Stallman]

    OTOH I find the above two examples of "generic function-key-map
    bindings" desirable.  Note that they have nothing to do with
    pre-command-hook: they just move a hardcoded C-level feature to elisp
    (well, the first is in C, the other doesn't exist because I don't want to
    add it to the C code but I don't have any clean way to do it in elisp
    right now).

Do you mean that these transformations would be defaults, only
to be used when there is no direct binding -- like the current default
transformations of shifted to nonshifted events?

That seems like a clean feature, if it is useful.

However, I have a bad feeling about using this to implement something
that makes _all_ shift keys do something special.

Binding some set of shifted keys to a command that says "run the
equivalent non-shifted character but do this other special thing"
seems better, because you could override that for individual shifted
keys if you wish.