Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> I don't think this holds.
> It's normal for higher-level APIs to rely on higher-level representations.

That's true...  but `define-keymap' and `define-key' are pretty much on
the same level.  I.e., both are public Emacs Lisp functions that define
keys.

> In the short term, no, but if you look at the 10-20 year horizon it
> seems quite doable.  Whether we do manage to completely remove it or not
> doesn't matter very much for the benefit of Emacs users we should make
> it so the user and coder will never need to know about it, and for that
> we should actively discourage its use, starting by not supporting it
> where it doesn't have to be supported.

Is it worth 20 years of pain?

I think Stefan K suggested making a whole new set of all these functions
that would only understand the new syntax.  I didn't think that would be
doable, because there's so many of them, but I didn't actually count.
Let's see...

define-keymap
define-key
global-set-key
global-unset-key
local-set-key
local-unset-key
lookup-key

OK, that's fewer than I thought.  So, new random thought:

kbd-keymap
kbd-define
kbd-set-globally
kbd-unset-globally
kbd-set-locally
kbd-unset-locally
kbd-lookup

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no