John H Palmieri <John.H.Palmieri.2(a)nd.edu> writes:
> > Output of `describe-key' is not intended to be read back to the
> > reader
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I mean that the output of `C-h k' is not guaranteed to be correct so
you can type `C-x C-e' on the printed form to evaluated. It's just
supposed to tell you the name of the function.
> Since `C-h k' is one of the basic help commands available, its
> output should be as clear and unambiguous as possible.
I guess `princ' could be changed to `prin1' without too many problems,
but binding keys to anonymous functions and then complaining about
`C-h k' output is ridiculous.
> make `A undefined. This seems like better behavior to me: the
> default is still to have "A" act like "a" (so SHFT-SPC acts like
> SPC), but it's not hard to unbind "A" if one wants to. (Plus, one
> might actually be led to try this by reading the documentation.)
The name of the variable `retry-undefined-key-binding-unshifted'
suggests that undefined keys should be retried unshifted. Obviously,
the code in keymap.c considers a key being bound to `undefined' as
"undefined", which looks correct to me.
Whether the resulting behaviour in your case is correct is another
question. I think it is.
> Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
> > This seems to be intentional. There is 28 lines of C to just this. See also
> > `retry-undefined-key-binding-unshifted' (watch the Doc string though).
> > I am not sure why this is done though...
> Is this variable documented anywhere (in an info file, that is: I
> know how to type C-h v)?
No; probably by omission. It will be documented sooner or later.
> How should I have found out about it, besides asking people familiar
> with the source code?
By looking at the source code yourself? :-)
> If a key-sequence which ends with a shifted keystroke is undefined
> and this variable is non-nil then the command lookup is retried again
> with the last key unshifted. (e.g. C-X C-F would be retried as C-X C-f.)
> If lookup still fails, a normal error is signalled. In general,
> you should *bind* this, not set it.
> Does "bind" in the last sentence mean that I should use `let'?
Yes. I have no idea what how the author envisioned this binding,