RE: Binding M-n and M-p to forward-paragraph and backward-paragraphrespectively

[Drew Adams]

> >> the idea that we shouldn't add new bindings because then
> >> someone in the future might think that those bindings are
> >> somehow `special' - and that we might want them to think 
> >> otherwise - is a rather extreme combination of straw-man and 
> >> absurdity.
> > 
> > It is neither straw man nor absurdity.  And it is not just 
> > an idea.  The last go-round about binding some (function)
> > key by default clearly demonstrated this: The discussion
> > had not even finished, and no decision had yet been reached,
> > before some were sending in posts that indicated that they 
> > understood that the key was _reserved_ and should not be
> > changed by users or 3rd-party libraries.
> 
> Yes, where as this is a binding that is clearly intended to 
> be changed by users and 3rd-party libraries.

No, that was true also in the other case, as it is in most cases where a binding
is explicitly only for _default_ behavior.

That's the point: Some people _mis_understand, thinking that the existence of a
default binding means that the binding is in some way reserved.  And as I
mentioned, the more a default key gets used commonly, the more people shy away
from rebinding it.  Creating a default binding is not without behavioral
consequences.