Re: position on changing defaults?

[Stefan Monnier]

>     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?

Yes, of course: function-key-map bindings only apply when there's no
direct binding.

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

Agreed.  I was only asking Miles what modification of key-remapping he
was thinking about.


        Stefan