#405 closed defect (upstream)
Report Emacs bug: Quail input breaks delete-char behaviour
Reported by: | Generic Isabelle user | Owned by: | David Aspinall |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | PG-Emacs-4.2 |
Component: | 2:pg-emacs | Keywords: | emacsbug |
Cc: |
Description
Step 1: In a theory file buffer, type a character like "-" or ".", which is an initial character in a Unicode shortcut sequence. The character displays with an underline, indicating this.
Step 2: Press "delete", intending to delete the chararacter to the right of the insertion point.
Result: The character that I just typed ("-" or ".") is deleted instead, as if I had pressed "backspace".
C-h k shows that "delete" is bound to unicode-tokens-delete-char, and "backspace" is bound to unicode-tokens-delete-backward-char. It appears that while entering a unicode token shortcut (when characters are shown with the underline) both of these do the same thing.
Versions: Isabelle Proof General, Version 4.1pre101216; GNU Emacs 23.2.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.21.6); Isabelle 2011; Ubuntu 10.10.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by
Keywords: | emacsbug added |
---|---|
Milestone: | PG-Emacs-4.1 → PG-Emacs-4.2 |
Status: | new → accepted |
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by
Summary: | When entering Unicode tokens, delete key acts like backspace → Report Emacs bug: Quail input breaks delete-char behaviour |
---|
comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by
Resolution: | → upstream |
---|---|
Status: | accepted → closed |
Reported upstream
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by
See here http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9022
Unfortunately one of the Emacs maintainers jumped up immediately and declared this behaviour intentional because the rebinding is explicit in the code! It seems like an obvious error to me, causing needless confusion. I have tried to argue this...
Thanks for the bug report.
This looks to be a bug in the underlying Emacs functionality used by Unicode Tokens, the quail input mechanism.
You can see the same effect with:
Again at step 4, the delete is backward, not forward as expected.