[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Quail and dabbrev-expand


        I use

rbp@francesca:~$ dpkg -l xemacs\* | grep ^ii
ii  xemacs21                        21.4.6-8             
ii  xemacs21-basesupport            2003.01.27-1.1       
ii  xemacs21-bin                    21.4.6-8             
ii  xemacs21-mule                   21.4.6-8             
ii  xemacs21-mulesupport            2003.01.27-1.1       
ii  xemacs21-mulesupport-el         2003.01.27-1.1       
ii  xemacs21-support                21.4.6-8             

        The default keybinding for M-/ is dabbrev-expand, as verified with
C-h k M-/

        However, I use quail when in text-mode (I call '(set-input-method
"portuguese-prefix")' from text-mode-hook) and, when I do, M-/ is rebound to
"quail-start-translation". This expands the word at point just fine, the
first time, but doesn't cycle through all possibilities if I keep pressing
M-/, like dabbrev-expand. In fact, it treats each time I press M-/ as the
first one, so if I have

foobar fobaz

        somewhere in an open buffer and type "foo" then "M-/", it expands to
"foobaz", like dabbrev-expand would, but if I press M-/ again, it tries to
expand "foobaz", not to try other expansions for "foo", and gives an error
if no expansions for foobaz are found.

        At first, I thought I'd simply rebind M-/ to dabbrev-expand, but it
doesn't work! When I enter text-mode, "C-h k M-/" shows me M-/ is bound to
quail-start-translation. If I then do "M-x global-set-key RET M-/ RET
dabbrev-expand RET", "C-h k M-/" tells me M-/ is *still* bound to
quail-start-translation (same goes for M-x local-set-key).

        What gives? Does anyone know why quail refuses to let M-/ (and I
assume this happens for other key sequences as well) be rebound. Should it
bind M-/ to its functions in the first place?


 Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel                         <rbp@isnomore.net>
 http://isnomore.net                          GPG KeyId: <0x0DB14978>

One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking
zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.
          -- Robert Firth

Reply to: