RE: Please add S-tab to button-buffer-map

[Drew Adams]

> > I have no objection to S-TAB going to the previous field 
> > whenever TAB goes to the next field. Other than such a
> > context, it seems unnatural. 
> 
> S-TAB is its own key.  It is only remapped to backtab via
> function-key-map, i.e. it is only treated as backtab in case 
> there's no binding for S-TAB.
> Furthermore backtab is not bound by default anyway.
> So your fears are simply unfounded.

I understood that this is about a fallback binding in case there is none. 

IIUC, today there is already such a fallback binding: S-tab is treated like
tab. This change would treat it like backtab instead. The current fallback
(S-tab -> tab) seems more natural to me - that's all I was saying. No fears
were expressed or implied.