RE: dired-jump keybinding and autoload

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

> More important: C-x C-j is reserved for Emacs internal use if I
> understand it correctly.

No, I don't see that anywhere.  Why would that be the case?

> See (info "(elisp) Key Binding Conventions"). I might be wrong since
> that page does not mention C-x, but I think it should.

You ask us to visit that node, but there is nothing there supporting your claim
- which you subsequently admit.  Just what would you like us to look for in that
node?

> That C-x today happens to be a bad choice (because of CUA) is another
> thing.

Sure is.  Unrelated, irrelevant, unimportant.

C-x today, yesterday, and tomorrow is an _excellent_ choice as an Emacs key
prefix.  It is easy-to-hand.  And it has been conventional in Emacs (and even
beyond) for over 30 years.

Saying that C-x is a bad choice because of CUA is like saying that driving on
the right side of the road is a bad choice because of Britain (or Japan or
India... - no flames please) - http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/.  When in
CUA-land, follow the rules of the CUA road, but don't expect folks across the
border to do the same.

> I definitively does not get better if 3rd party libraries
> starts using it too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with users or 3rd-party code using the C-x
prefix.  Or else there is a new restriction/convention that I am not aware of.

The conventions stated in `(elisp) Key Binding Conventions' are long-standing
and pretty carefully thought out.  There are enough such restrictions, IMO.  I
do not support adding C-x to any list of bindings "reserved for Emacs internal
use".