[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:17:10 -0700 |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:25:15 -0700
> >
> I'm still not sure what are you saying. Where do you suggest to move
> those top-level forms, and what would be the mechanism to evaluate
> them?
All the top level forms in each term/TERMINALNAME.el file will be
moved inside a newly created function TERMINALNAME-initialize-terminal.
> I mean, I understand the principles and don't need to be convinced in
> their usefulness, I just want to understand what are your specific
> suggestions.
>
> A test for an autoloaded function being fboundp will always yield t,
> so I think it's useless to check fboundp as an instrument of
> distinguishing between terminal types. And yet you did use fboundp in
> your original message.
I think Stefan's answer should shed a light on this. If not, I can try
again to explain better.
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, (continued)
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/07/23
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Dan Nicolaescu, 2005/07/25
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/07/26
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Dan Nicolaescu, 2005/07/26
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/07/26
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Dan Nicolaescu, 2005/07/26
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/07/26
- Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/07/27
Re: rxvt vs xterm keybindings, Kenichi Handa, 2005/07/22