Re: Suggested experimental test

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 25.03.2021 23:11, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> E.g. if it's bound to `C-c` it's fairly convenient to have bindings
> within it of the form `C-<letter>`, but if it's bound to `c` instead
> (assuming a a modal key-binding scheme like vi) then using `C-<letter>`
> within it is much less convenient.

Interesting example. I wanted to say nobody will bind it to 'c', but 
some people might decide to bind it to M-c instead.

Here's a thought: let's invent an extension of the kbd syntax which will 
allow us to specify a modifier indirectly based on an entry in 
key-translation-map. Like:

  (kbd "<mode-specific> <mode-specific-modifier>-c")

Even more backward-incompatible, but okay. But what to do if 
<mode-specific> has no modifiers, like <menu> in Yuri's example? 
Translate '<mode-specific-modifier>-c' to just 'c'? What happens to any 
other simple 'c' entry in that keymap? Do we "flip" it to, say, 'C-c'?

What happens if the user decides to bind <mode-specific> to 'C-d', and 
in my third-party package I choose 'C-c C-d' as a command binding? That 
seems like a popular one, inspired by SLIME. *And* I have another 
binding in there, 'C-c C-c'. Going along with the new feature, I'll 
write the first one like '<mode-specific> C-d' and the second one 
'<mode-specific> <mode-specific>'... right? That's a conflict. The only 
way of resolving such conflicts I can imagine is to also "flip" any 
'C-d' written verbatim and not as <mode-specific> back to C-c, the 
default <mode-specific> binding, when <mode-specific> is bound to 'C-d'. 
Which seems both tricky to implement and punishing to a lot of existing 
code that the user might try to use.

So maybe we should limit the scope of the effort and not try to solve 
all the inefficiencies, or we'll never make progress on this issue 
(after all, the main audience of this change are people who aren't so 
fond of key sequences; or at least not yet).

But better ideas welcome, of course.