Re: usr1-signal, usr2-signal, etc.

[Chong Yidong]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> So I would rather redefine them to single events (named sigusr1 and
> sigusr2 as those names are already known to the signal-process
> function), and handle them through special-event-map as you suggested.

In that case, is there a rationale for the rather large changes
checked into emacs.c, keyboard.c, and process.c over the last two
weeks?  Should they not be reverted?