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

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> 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. So what? Why is one conflict over
what C-z means better than the other? Or would you forbid Emacs from using C-z
altogether? No, I know, you would prefer C-z and all the rest to be CUA by
default. ;-)

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?

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.

Wrt delete-selection mode, I was clear that I would not support it as the
default for Emacs if the only reason were that new users expect it. I explicitly
cited CUA as a counter-example. I support d-s-mode mainly because I think it is
useful for Emacs users generally, and certainly not just because it coincides
with what new users expect. Not so, CUA.

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. 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.