Re: not good proposal: "C-z <letter>" reserved for users

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 13.02.2021 09:37, Robert Thorpe wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:
> 
>> On 12.02.2021 10:10, Robert Thorpe wrote:
>>> I think that user-friendliness is beneficial.  It would help with
>>> that if packages could bind some keys by default.
>>
>> The current tradition is that a package provides a major or minor mode
>> (or several), puts one of them in their init file, and *those* install
>> some default keymaps.
>>
>> auto-mode-alist entries, however, can be added through autoloads.
> 
> Yes.  But I don't think that solves the problems that Gregory Heyting
> and Drew Adams are talking about.
> 
> Firstly, it can't do anything about changes in keybindings in future
> Emacs versions.  Drew tells us that Emacs has recently mapped "C-x x",
> "C-x p" and "C-x /".  I'm using Emacs 27.1, so all of those must have
> been mapped for Emacs 28 (or perhaps the version after that).

Is that a problem? When such package finds out about a change like this, 
they can change the default binding, or they might keep it as it was.

After all, the changes like the ones you have mentioned are additive, 
both the project keymap and the later addition of buffer-related 
commands on 'C-x x'. They haven't been there before, and a fair number 
of users might not miss them if xyz-mode (which they do use) takes up 
either of the sequences.

> The author of a third party package can't easily deal with that.  What if
> their minor mode used "C-x x"?  In that case it will remove the keymaps
> of a core feature (or the core feature will remove it's keymap).

Minor mode keymaps generally override the global keymap.

> As Gregory Heyting has pointed out, what about packages that are not
> modes?  Not every package is a minor mode or major mode.  So, how should
> other types of package behave?

Depends on how their setup is documented. Minor or major modes are the 
majority, though.

> Lastly, the usability issue is still there.  I think beginners find this
> kind of thing difficult.

Having a key sequence overridden by a minor mode?

Considering beginners don't usually read the manual, they might not even 
know they are missing anything. Which might be a loss, of course, in 
certain cases. But not a difficulty.

> These days there are lots of Emacs "starter
> kits" that claim to make Emacs simpler.  A lot of what they do is
> configuring third-party packages.
> 
> Philip Kaludercic suggested some code for prompting users before mapping
> keys.  I think that's a good idea.

Some infrastructure for suggesting custom key bindings might work, but I 
feel the current third-party tradition has held up pretty well.