RE: question about `quit-char'

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Drew Adams writes:

 > >  > I thought I was asking a general, release-independent
 > >  > question. What am I missing?
 > > 
 > > An explanation of the semantics of the function you are binding.
 > > Whether you "want" to bind to the quit character or to C-g depends on
 > > whether or not the function has the semantics of quitting.
 > 
 > Totally irrelevant.

Of course it's not irrelevant.  You asked whether to bind a command to
`quit-char' or `C-g', and the answer is "in principle, it depends on
if the command has quit semantics, in practice currently you may as
well just bind `C-g'".  Since you asked about `quit-char', respondents
seem to have assumed at first that you wanted to know something about
the appropriate way to bind a quit command to a key, and away we go.

 > What command I want to bind the key/char to and why, and what that
 > command does, are all irrelevant to the question I raised. Which
 > has already been answered, BTW.

True.  I'm trying to explain to you why a lot of bandwidth was spent
on a question that wasn't the one you wanted answered, to answer your
question "What am I missing?"  Your original question was ambiguous,
even misleading, and people answered the wrong interpretation.