"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Then \bind "" "shortcut" will override no (no corresponding entry in >> > the master bind file), >> >> This one does nothing. > > And I display it in purple so that a user can remove it. After all, > the GUI is an interface to user.bind.
I do not think the GUI should be an interface to each and every construct that can be added to a bind file (especially since some of them are not useful). Users do not care about bind files, they care about configuring intuitively their shortcuts. They should not have to learn about how bind files work, or this defeats the need for the UI. >> I agree that there may be a problem with overriding prefixes. > > As I have said, your \bind "" "C-g" is the same as \unbind, but less > specific. I consider that as a problem. Using \unbind lfun shortcut, > you will not have the problem with overriding prefix, display this > item by lfunc, etc. Also, there will be serious trouble in > implementation because you can not represent your item properly in a > KeyMap (like what unbind_map does). Sorry, could you tell me again what \unbind does and you feel \bind "C-g" "" would not do? > I see. The only difference I can see now is that > > 1. I display 'unmatched unbind' in purple, and you dislike it. (You > logic CAN NOT display it.) > 2. I display bindings seprately so that I can easily remove and > revert. You tend to group shortcuts together. The implementation of > your proposal is much more difficult. > > Anyway other specific complaint againt the current GUI? I will be able to be more specific when I manage to make it work... (the C-letter problem is annoying, but I am confident it will get solved soon). JMarc
