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

[Joost Kremers <joostkremers@fastmail.fm>]

On Fri, Feb 12 2021, Gregory Heytings wrote:
>>> A meta key alone wouldn't be an appealing solution for third-party 
>>> developers, it must either a control key alone, or a control key and 
>>> its corresponding meta key.
>>
>> I don't see why.  What wrong with just a meta key?  On modern keyboards 
>> the Alt and Ctrl keys are usually the same size.
>
> It's of course not a matter of key size.  In Emacs key bindings, control 
> ones are "primary", and meta ones are "secondary".  You open, save, quit, 
> move, search, ... with control keybindings, in fact you can use Emacs 
> without ever using meta keys.  The opposite isn't true.  Relegating 
> third-party libraries on a secondary key binding can't be an appealing 
> solution.

That's a strange argument to make. Meta keys are as integral to Emacs as control
keys. The existence of such pairs as C-f / M-f, C-b / M-b or C-t / M-t etc. makes
that clear. Sure you can use Emacs without ever using meta keys, but it would be
damned inconvenient. I mean, you could say the same about the control key:
just use the mouse menu and cursor keys and you'll be able to get a lot done.

Of course, I see your point that the control key is more or less the
prototypical modifier key, but why should that mean that reserving a meta key
for external packages would be unappealing? (Plus, on Macs, the prototypical
modifier key seems to be command, not control.)

-- 
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments