Re: The new keymap functions

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:

>>> If they do something different from what `local-unset-key` and
>>> `global-unset-key` do, would it perhaps be useful to name them
>>> differently as
>>> well? Perhaps `unbind` instead of `unset`?
>> Or -remove, perhaps?

I've decided to keep the old semantics, so -unset is more correct.  (But
removal will be an option:

(defun keymap-local-unset (key &optional remove)
...
  (interactive
   (list (key-description (read-key-sequence "Unset key locally: "))
         current-prefix-arg))

> And for symmetry with 'remove', we could use 'put' instead of 'set'.
>
> It would sound more like working with a hashmap/hashtable (which a
> keymap is, in a sense).

It makes sense, but it feels a bit too...  technical.

Anyway, I think I'm just about ready to push the changes to the trunk,
and I'll do so tomorrow.  The changes to the manuals is still a work in
progress, but it'll take a few more sweeps over the manual to see what
needs to remain and what should be edited out (especially concerning the
many key syntaxes, which we want to de-emphasise, but still keep), and I
think it makes more sense to hold off on doing that until we've got more
experience with the new functions.  (But I think the main work has been
done in the manuals, too.)

After pushing the changes, you'll all have to say "make bootstrap" (or
remove all the .elc files first) because of the changes to the syntax
in `defvar-keymap'.

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