"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I do not think it makes sense to change the lfun for a given shortcut, >> but this is actually the root of our disagreement (list of bindings >> versus list of actions). > > The problem is that we do not have a fixed amount of lfun. If you list > by bindings, how would you list lfuns without shortcut? The current > approach, IMHO, is more appropriate.
Yes, what I prefer is 'one lfun' == 'one line'. >> Except that we do not see what the shortcut used to be (if you have >> remove two shortcuts for the same function, you cannot guess which >> is which). > > Yeap, this is why I used colors... maybe you prefer gray-scale? :-) In some sense, showing the binding makes people believe it is here... JMarc
