> 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. It makes sense to disallow the modification of lfun during 'modification', and enable it during 'new shortcut'. Currently, there is no concept of modification. > > If you do not display them, surely you can not revert them. Another > > proposal is that we display them as separate items, in bold > > (modified), but without shortcut (removed). And we allow revert. Is it > > OK to you? (This will also change 2). > > 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? :-) Bo
