Re: Tweaking t-m-m to make room for d-s-m

[Lennart Borgman]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> Couldn't C-x SPC be used to activate the region (without changing
>> >> point and mark)? It seems unused and is easier to type then
>> >> Alan's suggestion. -- Mathias
>> >
>> > C-z
>>
>> I think that would be a very bad idea since C-z seems to be used as
>> undo in most editing environments.
>
> And C-z is currently `suspend-frame' in Emacs.


And you have said this is not an important use since there are
alternative key bindings.


> CUA is so very different from Emacs that I see no need to consider such
> conflicts. Emacs does not sync with CUA's C-c, C-x, C-v, ESC,... Why should we
> treat CUA's C-z with special respect?


It is new users that should be treated with respect. All of them know
these key bindings. All of them use them. (If they are not computer
illiterates.)


> Arguments that Emacs should do something by default _only_ because vi (e.g.
> Viper) or CUA does it are non-starters, with me at least.


The vim community has accepted them. To me that means that they (as a
community) have accepted that they are important.

Emacs has not accepted them. I fairly certain the problem is backward
compatibility in Emacs. Nothing else at all. (Of course backward
compatibility is important but it is not the whole story.)

But I do not expect CUA keys to be accepted now, I just want to avoid
adding new troubles. Using C-z for something new (except `undo') would
be new trouble IMO.


> There is a logic behind the CUA keys, yes. Those who came up with CUA didn't 
> do
> so without thought. But it is a logic that takes as its starting point that 
> the
> set of editing operations is just about summed up by those few operations: 
> cut,
> copy, paste, undo. Under such an assumption it is not a bad idea to put all of
> those frequently used operations together within easy reach.
>
> But Emacs's use of keyboard keys blows the "half-dozen editing operations"
> scenario out of the water.


I would rather say it looks like CUA blows Emacs out of the water ;-)

But that is not what I want.


> AFAICS, the _only_ reason for Emacs to conform to CUA
> would be to have a better fit with the outside world. For me, that is not a
> sufficient reason.


If you just say "conform" you may miss the essentials of it. It is
about user convenience, not about some strictness called "conform" or
"better fit".